Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL

To be read the Third time Tomorrow.

WHITSTABLE HARBOUR BILL

PORTSLADE AND SOUTHWICK OUTFALL SEWERAGE BOARD BILL

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

WORKINGTON HARBOUR AND DOCK (TRANSFER) BILL

As amended, considered; Amendments made to the Bill; Bill to be read the Third time.

LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time Tomorrow.

ARUNDEL ESTATE BILL [Lords]

To be read a Second time upon Thursday, 27th June.

ABERDEEN HARBOUR (SUPERANNUATION) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Read the Third time and passed.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Hydrogen Bomb

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply what is his estimate of the cost of a hydrogen bomb.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Aubrey Jones): It would not be in the public interest to give such an estimate.

Mr. Hughes: Is the Minister aware of the strong criticisms of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) because the Labour Government spent £100 million without telling the House of

Commons, and is the right hon. Gentleman following this regrettable precedent? Could he not tell us how many Premium Bonds the Postmaster-General would have to sell in order to pay for a bomb?

Mr. Jones: I am very ready to be as forthcoming as possible in these matters, but I am afraid that this is an instance where it would be in conflict with the public interest to give a figure.

Guided Missiles

Mr. Emrys Hughes: asked the Minister of Supply the cost of the most expensive type of guided missile.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: The most expensive type of guided missile at present envisaged is the ballistic missile. Depending on its range, this type of missile is expected to cost £150,000 or so in production.

Mr. Hughes: Can the Minister tell us why he can give the figures for a guided missile and cannot give the figures for a hydrogen bomb?

Mr. Jones: As I said to the hon. Gentleman, I am only too anxious to be as forthcoming as possible. A ballistic missile does not differ essentially in structure from country to country, but a hydrogen bomb does, and to give a figure for the hydrogen bomb would be to give another country a very good idea of what went into the making of it.

Mr. D. Jones: Having told us what the production cost is, can the right hon. Gentleman tell us what it has cost the country to develop the ballistic missile?

Mr. Jones: No, Sir.

Royal Ordnance Factory, Radway Green

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply what consideration he gave to the conversion of parts of the Royal Ordnance factory at Radway Green to civil production before deciding to make more workers redundant; and if he will reconsider the position.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Supply what type of goods have been manufactured in past years for the civilian market at Radway Green Royal Ordnance factory; and what steps are now being taken to manufacture such articles again.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: As I informed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 27th May, there is little or no present scope for introducing civil work into this factory. After the last war, the factory was mainly engaged on the production of gas and electric cookers when there was a shortage of such goods. The present plant is not suitable for this type of work.

Mr. Swingler: Is the Minister aware that that information is in flat contradiction to what the workers at the factory say and what has been represented to Members of Parliament in North Staffordshire by the trade unions there? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, in their opinion and experience, coal mining machinery can be manufactured there, sparking plugs have been manufactured there and that it would be well equipped to supply equipment for the railways and also for the atomic energy programme? Will not the Minister look again into the potentialities of the factory?

Mr. Jones: The fact remains that this is rather a unique factory with very specialised equipment. Its current rate of operation on defence orders is, in fact, a high one, and far higher than that when the civil work was being done. It would be quite impossible to rip out machinery and introduce an infinitesimal amount of civil work at this juncture.

Dr. Stross: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there has been a vast amount of capital expenditure in this factory and that it is capable, if the orders are forthcoming, of manufacturing very many products, including machine tools? Will not the right hon. Gentleman give the matter further consideration rather than let the factory become derelict?

Mr. Jones: No one is allowing this factory to become derelict. A great deal of capital equipment has gone into the factory, but the suggestion that I should put in civil work means tearing out this valuable equipment, and that is what I am saying is undesirable.

Mr. Lee: Would the right hon. Gentleman tell us what is the policy of the Government for the Royal Ordnance factories? Does not he agree that at one

period a very high percentage of civil work was being done in the Royal Ordnance factories? Is it not the case that the Government have completely set their minds against them, despite the fact that they pay hundreds of millions of pounds on dollar imports, such as agricultural machinery, and so on?

Mr. Jones: A very long and important answer upon this matter was given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Ellis Smith), I believe last March. No, Sir. Civil work is not excluded, but I would ask hon. Members to bear in mind the fact that the post-war circumstances differ considerably from the present ones. In the post-war period there was a great shortage of capacity for producing goods. That is no longer the case.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House the result of any discussions he has had with the Minister of Labour regarding the employment of redundant men from this factory? Will he also consider publishing a White Paper giving the House and the country details of the future of Royal Ordnance factories, and what they have done?

Mr. Jones: With regard to the first part of that supplementary question, it is the practice for me to inform my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour of any contraction in orders and of likely redundancies arising. The placing of the displaced workers is then a matter for my right hon. Friend. The second part of the supplementary question anticipates a further Question on the Order Paper, but I will certainly bear that suggestion sympathetically in mind.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Supply what consideration he gave to the prospects of alternative employment in North Staffordshire before deciding to make more workers redundant at the Royal Ordnance factory at Radway Green.

Mr. Aubrey Jones: It is my intention that all fresh orders this year for small arms ammunition shall be executed at Radway Green, but the requirement has been so reduced that redundancy could not be avoided.

Mr. Swingler: That does not answer the Question. I asked the Minister what


consideration was given to the prospects of alternative employment. Is the Minister not aware—or is it a fact that he did not consult the Minister of Labour—that at the moment there are about 3,350 unemployed in North Staffordshire, which is more than 2 per cent. of the working population, and well above the national average? Did he not take this fact into account in deciding to sack another 1,000 workers for whom there are no alternative jobs?

Mr. Jones: I answered the hon. Member's Question by implication, if not explicitly. The number of works engaged on this type of work is extremely limited: there are no other Royal Ordnance factories. There are one or two private factories. My Answer made it quite clear that the orders to private factories were reduced before any redundancies were declared at Radway Green.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF HEALTH

Private Patients

Mr. John Hall: asked the Minister of Health (1) if he will now amend the National Health Service Act, 1946, so as.to allow those who elect to become private patients to utilise the other facilities provided by the Act;
(2) if he will so amend the National Health Service Act, 1946, as to allow the provision to all private patients free of charge, other than the prescription charge, of a selected list of preventive and life saving drugs and drugs designed for the alleviation and treatment of lethal diseases.

The Minister of Health (Mr. Dennis Vosper): The private patients of general practitioners have full access to all the facilities of the National Health Service, other than the supply of drugs as part of general medical services. The provision of a selected list of drugs for private patients would raise many problems of great difficulty.

Mr. Hall: Is it not a fact that all insured persons pay for the National Health Service through their contributions, rates and taxes? Therefore, should not they be entitled to the benefits for which they have paid, even though they may opt to be private patients and pay

for their doctors out of their own pockets?

Mr. Vosper: As I told my hon. Friend, this matter raises many problems of great difficulty, one being that it would require legislation. In addition, there would have to be some form of control of doctors who are not at present in the National Health Service. My predecessor invited the British Medical Association to discuss this matter with the Department, and those discussions are about to take place.

Dr. Summerskill: Would the right hon. Gentleman consider the fact that if an amendment of this kind were introduced it would create a specially privileged category of National Health Service patient, and, furthermore, would tend to encourage over-prescribing?

Mr. Vosper: I am not prepared to accept either of the right hon. Lady's allegations. I realise that there are many difficulties, but the matter is to be discussed with the British Medical Association, which has some proposals to make.

Mr. Vane: May I ask my right hon. Friend not to be diverted from his purpose by the right hon. Lady opposite? Will he look into the matter again and assure himself that these difficulties are real and not just imaginary bureaucratic difficulties? Why should not a person who pays a full contribution to the National Health Service be allowed just a part of the benefit? Surely it is in the national interest to allow him to do this, instead of forcing him to take the whole or none?

Mr. Vosper: The difficulties are very real. As I said, discussions are about to take place. I promise that I will examine my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the right non Gentleman aware that there is a great amount of feeling in the country that people who pay for their treatment arc privileged and get quicker treatment in hospitals than do National Health Service patients? Will he make certain that there is no increase in this sort of procedure?

Mr. Vosper: That is another question, which hardly arises from this one.

Dame Florence Horsbrugh: When considering this problem, will my right


hon. Friend take into account the fact that with the higher charges more money will be paid by people for the National Health Service? That fact should be taken into consideration when considering the problem.

Mr. Vosper: I will do that.

Leprosy

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the work conducted by the World Health Organisation towards the eradication of leprosy, particularly by the use of sulphone drugs; and to what extent the cost of treatment is a limiting factor.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): The Organisation's Programme and Regular Budgets for 1957 and 1958 provide for assistance to leprosy control in several countries. The Organisation will also take part in the Seventh International Conference on Leprology at New Delhi in 1958. The Director-General has recently reported on improved prospects for control with the use of sulphone drugs, but has pointed out that many technical problems remain. The money available to the Organisation and its general activities are determined by member countries at the World Health Assembly.

Dr. Stross: Can the Minister state what are the technical limitations? Is it fair to say that, in the main, we are not yet able to take the treatment to the patient in all cases, but that it is easy for the patient to go to the centre for treatment? If that is the case, is not there any method by which a number of countries could be encouraged to find greater financial aid, so that the World Health Organisation could extend its activities?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I do not want to get too involved in the technicalities of the matter, but I know that eradication is not yet regarded as practicable. The actual problems to which the Director-General referred concerned such questions as optimum drug preparation and dosage schedules, diagnostic techniques, criteria of infectivity, and so forth. If the hon. Member has any other particulars upon which he wants information, I will obtain it.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a very

urgent need for more finance for this work? I saw some of it in the East a short while ago. As long as we refuse to contribute to other world health funds, a great deal of the resources of the World Health Organisation has to be channelled into these other purposes, which could very well be more concentrated upon leprosy work.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We should bear in mind the fact that the United Kingdom is one of the largest contributors to these international bodies.

Dr. Stross: asked the Minister of Health what would be the approximate cost of suplhone drugs required for the treatment of a case of leprosy for a period of two years.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The basic cost of the drugs will depend on the method of administration. If given in tablet form, which is the usual method in this country, it would be about 12s. If given by injection the cost would be at least 50 per cent. more.

Dr. Stross: That means that for a few shillings we can cure cases of leprosy if we can get the patients at the centres. Is not that a most helpful thing, and should not Her Majesty's Government do what they always have done in the past, set an example to the other member countries and find as much finance as is possible so that everyone is able to get treatment?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We must look at this matter in proportion. There are other diseases with which the World Health Organisation has to deal, and I think we should leave it to the Organisation to work out the priorities.

Employees (Statement of Salaries)

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health if he will arrange for the statement of salary and deductions from pay for those employed in the National Health Service to be simplified and given on a form which can be filed.

Mr. Vosper: I am not sure what the hon. Member has in mind, but this would appear to be a matter for the employing authorities.

Dr. Broughton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that accompanying


each payment of salary there is a very complicated statement made out on a strip of paper which measures five-eighths of an inch in width and nearly two feet in length? As this cannot be filed satisfactorily, and as it is apt to become twisted, tangled and torn, would the right hon. Gentleman be good enough to look into this matter to see whether he can arrange for the statement to be made on a more usual type of form, instead of this ridiculous slip of paper?

Mr. Vosper: This form of statement has a familiar ring to me. I will look at the matter. I was not certain whether the hon. Member had in mind the practice of any particular regional board or executive council, or the general principle, which is, of course, a matter for the Whitley Council.

Dr. Summerskill: Can the right. hon. Gentleman also say why this strip of paper is of almost rice paper texture?

Mr. Vosper: I imagine that is a matter of economy, but I will examine it.

Foreign Visitor (Treatment)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Health in what circumstances a foreign visitor was recently supplied with contact lenses at Moorfields Eye Hospital for a charge of £1.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The lenses were supplied to this patient because she suffers from a very high degree of myopic astigmatism and is nearly blind even with ordinary spectacles. She was admitted to this country in September, 1956, on a twelve months' Ministry of Labour permit, and at the time the lenses were ordered was at work here. The charge of £1 is in accordance with the standard charge for lenses laid down in the National Health Service Act of 1951.

Dentists, Dagenham (Emergency Treatment)

Mr. Parker: asked the Minister of Health whether he will take steps to create a rota of dentists in Dagenham to provide emergency treatment.

Mr. Vaughan - Morgan: Executive councils have already been asked to consult local dental committees about local arrangements for providing emergency dental treatment and the institution of rotas has been commended to them.

Prescriptions

Major Beamish: asked the Minister of Health to what causes he ascribes the rise of about 6d. in the cost of individual prescriptions under the National Health Service since the Is. charge was levied on each prescription.

Mr. Vosper: Examination of a sample of the prescriptions dispensed in December, 1956, showed that the increase of about 5d. was probably almost entirely due to the ordering of larger quantities.

Major Beamish: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, in order to detract from the Government's handling of this problem and at the same time to attack the pharmaceutical industry, it has been suggested that the main reason is an increased use of proprietary medicines? Am I to assume from my right hon. Friend's reply that that is not true?

Mr. Vosper: There was no increase in the proportion of proprietaries for December, 1956, the first month of the new charge.

Dr. Summerskill: Is the Minister aware that what has happened is precisely what was said would happen by hon. Members on this side of the House during the debate on the subject, that if this increase was made the doctors would inevitably over-prescribe in order to help the poorest patient?

Mr. Vosper: In fact, my right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton), when he was Minister, said that one of the ways to avoid hardship would be to prescribe larger quantities for those who suffered from chronic illness. That is what has happened, and I believe that is why the cases of hardship are few in number.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health if he has now reviewed the effects of increased prescription charges; and what information he has in respect of the decrease in the number of prescriptions and their cost in respect of retirement pensioners and of other patients.

Mr. Vosper: Examination of a sample of prescriptions dispensed in December has shown that the increase in average cost of about 5d. was probably due almost entirely to doctors prescribing larger quantities. The trend of costs


since December suggests that this has continued. The number of prescriptions has also been much lower than a year ago, but this must be due partly to the low incidence of sickness. I regret that I have no separate information relating to prescriptions for retirement pensioners.

Mr. Sorensen: Could the Minister indicate to what extent the anticipation of these increases has been fulfilled financially.?

Mr. Vosper: So far as I can gather at present, the anticipated saving and the actual saving will be about the same.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not the Minister recognise the very real danger of waste involved in prescribing larger quantities, which he himself is encouraging?

Mr. Vosper: I cannot accept that, which suggests that the general practitioner is not competent to exercise discretion. The ordering of larger quantities is not wasteful if there is a continuing need. It does help people with chronic or continuing illness. That, I believe, is what is happening at the moment.

Dr. Summerskill: Would the right hon. Gentleman say it is an overstatement to say that most people have in their bathroom cupboards unused tablets, lotions and ointments which have cost the country a great amount of money?

Mr. Vosper: I have seen allegations to that effect, but I have no evidence that it is true.

Health Services (Co-ordination)

Sir K. Joseph: asked the Minister of Health whether he will consider asking the Central Health Services Council to review the subject of co-operation between hospital, local authority and general practitioner services on which they reported to him in 1952 in the light of subsequent developments.

Mr. Vosper: A number of committees have studied the subject since 1952, notably the Guillebaud Committee, which reported last year. Although I have this subject very much in mind, I am reluctant to ask the Central Health Services Council to make yet another review.

Sir K. Joseph: Is my right hon. Friend satisfied at this stage that co-operation between these various bodies gives the

best service conceivable to the public? If not, would he consider putting in force, or perhaps starting in one region to try them out, some of the ideas that have been suggested?

Mr. Vosper: I am by no means satisfied that we have reached the highest degree of co-operation possible. I think it is more a matter of the attitude of mind of those concerned than a need for new machinery, but I will look at the point mentioned by my hon. Friend.

Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency (Report)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Minister of Health if he will make a statement of his policy in regard to the implementation of the recommendations of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Laws Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health whether he will make a statement on the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law Relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency.

Mr. Vosper: I welcome this valuable and comprehensive Report, and I am at present studying the many recommendations made in it. I must have time to consider them before making any further statement. But I am glad to have this opportunity of expressing the Government's gratitude to the Chairman and members of the Royal Commission for undertaking this important inquiry.

Dr. Johnson: Will my right hon. Friend first accept the assurance of all those interested in reform of the law of support for any steps he may take in implementing these recommendations? Will he, in particular, take some action, prior to legislation—which we realise must take time—on those recommendations which do not require legislation, particularly the review of patients at present in hospital?

Mr. Vosper: I am very pleased to note the first point made by my hon. Friend. Most certainly I shall consider what can be done by administrative means in advance of any legislation.

Mr. Blenkinsop: First, may I also assure the right hon. Gentleman of the welcome from this side of the House for


this Report? Secondly, may I ask him to use his best endeavours to get a day set aside for a debate on it as early as possible after the Whitsun Recess?

Mr. Vosper: That does not rest with me, but I personally should welcome a debate on this Report.

Mrs. Braddock: Will the Minister accept from me on behalf of the Commission our thanks for the very kind words he has spoken today about the work it has done? Will he consult the Leader of the House on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, East (Mr. Blenkinsop) about having a debate? Is he aware that the country is very concerned about the position? There seems to be a great deal of agreement on both sides of the House about the Report, and a full debate as soon after the Recess as possible would be very much appreciated.

Mr. Vosper: I wish to thank the hon. Member for her contribution to this Report, and also to thank her for her remarks. I will consult my right hon. Friend, and I have also noted the Motion on the Order Paper.

[That this House welcomes the publication of the Report of the Royal Commission on the Law relating to Mental Illness and Mental Deficiency; and places on record its admiration of the work of those concerned with all branches of our mental health services.]

Mr. K. Robinson: Will the right hon. Gentleman agree that, as a result of the recommendations of the Royal Commission, the present procedures will now give rise to increased anxieties and frustrations on the part of parents, psychiatrists and patients? Is not that an added reason for early action on the recommendations?

Mr. Vosper: That is certainly true, but the hon. Member will realise that any legislation will be of a very complicated and prolonged nature and must receive adequate consideration before it is introduced.

Smoking (Lung Cancer)

Mr. Hastings: asked the Minister of Health what advice he has received from the Standing Medical Advisory Committee of the Central Health Services

Council regarding the relationship between smoking and lung cancer during 1956; and what action he proposes to take upon it.

Mr. Vosper: I would refer the hon. Member to paragraph 13 of the Report of the Council for 1956 and to the penultimate paragraph of my statement published with it.

Mr. Hastings: Do not all these statements point to the need for something definite to be done? Is it not clear that the public want a statement from the Minister telling them, as far as our present knowledge goes, exactly how they stand in relation to this very important question?

Mr. Vosper: I did say in answer to a Question last week that the Report of the Medical Research Council would be available within a very few weeks. I would ask the hon. Member to await that Report.

Mr. Lipton: Could we have an assurance that, after having ignored the recommendations or the advice of the Standing Medical Advisory Committee and the Central Health Services Council, the Minister will not now ignore the advice of the Medical Research Council, which is going to confirm everything said by bodies which previously considered the subject?

Mr. Vosper: I have certainly not ignored the advice given me by my own Council. What my predecessor and I have done has been to bring it to the notice of this House and of the public, and I have already asked the hon. Member not to anticipate what may be in the Report of the Medical Research Council.

Mental Illness (Certification)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, of recent years, a much greater use has been made of the one-doctor process of certification than of the two-doctor process for which the law also provides; and whether, pending the introduction of amending legislation, he will use the resources of his Department to give publicity to the existence of the two-doctor process of certification.

Mr. Vosper: Two medical certificates are required in all cases of certification


of mental defectives. In cases of mental illness, relatives or friends of the patient can initiate the procedure involving two medical certificates, and the one certificate procedure can be used only where the duly authorised officer is satisfied that there are no relatives or friends able and willing to initiate action or that the patient is not under proper care and control. The question of further publicity is one which I will take into account when considering the Royal Commission's proposals.

Mr. Dodds: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that every week now 400 people are certified under the one-doctor procedure and the doctor does not need to have any special knowledge of mental illness? As the relatives do not know about these things until long after the deed has been done, can he not see the dangers of this system, which the Royal Commission indicated?

Mr. Vosper: The hon. Member said that the relatives do not know, but it may he that they would prefer to use the one-certificate procedure. In any case, the medical superintendent also examines the patient. In considering whether any action should be taken on the administrative side of the proposals made by the Royal Commission, I will look at this point.

National Health Service (Statistics)

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Health what action he is taking to maintain and make public a fuller statistical return of the work of the National Health Service.

Mr. Vosper: The Statistical Branch of my Department has been increased and is carrying out an extensive review and re-organisation of records and returns with a view to providing a speedier and fuller service.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Whilst welcoming that statement from the Minister, may I ask if it would not be helpful if at some appropriate time he were to lay a White Paper or by other means inform the House of what future use he hopes to make of this statistical information available to him?

Mr. Vosper: I do not know about publishing a White Paper, but I will consider making some information available.

At the moment, the statistical branch has mainly been concerned with internal work, and I have nothing much to put before the House at this stage.

Dr. Stross: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind how very useful it would be, not only to us but to the rest of the world, if we were to have figures available, industry by industry, of a certain number of breakdowns in health?

Mr. Vosper: I will note that suggestion.

Children (Vitamins)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: asked the Minister of Health whether, in view of the Report of the Central Health Services Committee that some infants are receiving unnecessarily large quantities of vitamin D, he will state how far he is satisfied that all children up to the age of five years in this country still need adequate supplements of this vitamin to prevent rickets and promote healthy bone and teeth formation, and that National cod liver oil is one of the ideal sources of this vitamin and the vitamin A which is also required.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that children up to five years of age need an adequate source of vitamin D and that national cod liver oil is one of the best sources of this vitamin and of vitamin A.

Mr. Hill: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, in the light of this Report, that National cod liver oil continues to be particularly valuable in that it provides these two vitamins in the correct proportion and, furthermore, enables the dosage to be correctly and easily regulated?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: My right hon. Friend is now studying the Report of the Joint Sub-Committee on Welfare Foods. On the major issue, I welcome this opportunity of drawing attention to the value of cod liver oil, particularly in view of the low uptake.

Channel Islands (Reciprocal Arrangements)

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Health to what extent reciprocal arrangements are in operation in the Channel Islands for free medical treatment for United Kingdom residents or visitors.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: A free general practitioner service is available to visitors from Great Britain to Guernsey (including Alderney), which includes medical services, drugs and appliances but not dental or (except in emergency) ophthalmic treatment, and also in-patient hospital treatment. In Jersey, in-patient and outpatient hospital treatment is available.

Mr. Russell: Does not my hon. Friend agree, therefore, that we are under an obligation, almost, to give free Health Service treatment, certainly medical treatment, to visitors from the Channel Islands?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Yes, that is quite correct, and we do have a reciprocal treaty. I should have added that, unfortunately, no reciprocal arrangements exist with Sark.

Personal Case

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Health for what purpose Mr. L. C. Hitchcock, of Hillingdon Heath, was required to attend at Ealing for steering tests on two vehicles when one was a petrol all-weather machine with a type of steering which previously had been agreed as unsuitable and the other was an obsolete vehicle with a type of steering which Mr. Hitchcock had managed for the past seven years.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Mr. Hitchcock now has an old electric tricycle with centre tiller steering. He has asked for either an all-weather electric machine or a petrol machine and the object of the test was to see whether he could in fact manage a petrol-driven machine either with standard controls or the special controls which he has been accustomed to use on the electric tricycle.

Mr. Beswick: In view of the fact that this invalid himself said that he could not manage a machine with the old controls and in view of the fact that I wrote specifically on this point and received an assurance from the Minister that he would not be tested on the old type of controls, may I ask what was the purpose of getting him to go all the way to Ealing simply in order to test him on a machine which he knew he could not operate and on a machine which he had had for seven years and he knew very well he could operate?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: There were two issues. The first was whether he should have a petrol machine or an electric-driven machine. The second was whether he should have the centre tiller steering or the other kind of tiller steering. The object of the test was to see which would suit his particular needs. We have not yet any all-weather electric machines with centre tiller steering, which is what he needs, but we hope that production will start soon.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Would my hon. Friend look into the whole question of self-propelled tricycles and vehicles? Many of these are not only old but out of date and quite unsuitable for modern-day purposes.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: We are now starting to replace them.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Health why Mr. L. C. Hitchcock, of Hillingdon Heath, was informed by letter that he would be able to examine and try various transit chairs if he visited the appliance centre at Ealing, but was informed, on visiting Ealing, that it would be necessary for an officer to visit Mr. Hitchcock at his place of employment in order to discuss the matter.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I understand that Mr. Hitchcock was told that our officers would discuss the question of his transit chair when he was visiting the Appliance Centre on another matter. But it was then found necessary for a technical officer to see the conditions under which it was used so that he could judge the most suitable model.

Mr. Beswick: Again I ask why it was necessary for this invalid person to have to make the journey to Ealing in order to be told that? Was it not known before he made the journey?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The point is that he has two types of chair, one for use at home and one for use at work which he wants to change to a different type. It was in order to see which was the most appropriate type that the inquiry had to take place at his place of work.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Health how many visits have been paid by various officers of his Department to Mr. L. C. Hitchcock, of Hillingdon Heath,


both at his home and his place of employment, for the purpose of repairing his old electric tricycle; whether the machine is now considered to be in a roadworthy condition; when the old machine is to be replaced; and with what type.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I have no record of the number of visits by the Department's officers or by approved repairers. The machine was made fully roadworthy on 30th April. My right hon. Friend will consider replacing it when the new all-weather electric tricycles with centre-tiller steering become available.

Mr. Beswick: In view of the fact that there has been a most extraordinary delay and a good deal of unkindness to this invalid person, and in view of the fact that he has been criticised because he has written to his Member of Parliament about his difficulties, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this matter at the earliest possible opportunity on the Adjournment.

Oral Answers to Questions — MEDICAL RESEARCH

Mental Illness (Research Workers)

Mr. M. Stewart: asked the Minister of Health, as representing the Lord President of the Council, what progress has been made in the last twelve months in the training of research workers into mental illness.

Mr. Vosper: During the past twelve months the Medical Research Council has awarded a number of its scholarships and fellowships, which provide training in research methods and in the basic medical sciences, to workers studying various aspects of the problem of mental illness. Post-graduate awards open to candidates wishing to study psychiatric subjects have also been provided from hospital endowment funds, and by a number of private trusts.

Mr. Stewart: Does the Minister feel that the shortage of research workers in this field, which was mentioned by his predecessor as a reason why research could not proceed more rapidly, is now being overcome?

Mr. Vosper: I am not satisfied that we have enough even now, but there has been an increase since this matter was last raised in this House.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOSPITALS

Rampton State Institution (Patients)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Health the number of patients in Rampton State Institution; how many have never been before a court and, in this respect, what are the chief reasons for their detention with those of allegedly dangerous and violent propensities who have previously been in prison or before a court; and in what way mental defectives who have committed no wrong can be given under such conditions the treatment that will enable them to return to the community as useful citizens.

Mr. Vosper: The number is 1,074. Full information on how many have been before a court is not available, but 556 were not dealt with as mental defectives either by the courts or by the Secretary of State whilst being detained in prisons, approved schools, or elsewhere. They were sent to Rampton because of dangerous or violent propensities. Each patient is treated according to his individual needs, and when the medical superintendent reports that he no longer possesses these propensities the normal procedure is to transfer him to an ordinary mental deficiency hospital with a view to his subsequent return to the community.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman saying that there are patients at Rampton who have not been before the court who are of violent and dangerous propensities? Does he appreciate the difficulty of putting those who have not done any wrong with criminals at Rampton? Does he not think there should be some segregation?

Mr. Vosper: After all, Rampton is a hospital and all the patients there have either violent or dangerous propensities. They are treated according to that and not according to their origin. The hon. Gentleman has already asked whether he and some other hon. Members can go to Rampton. I am sure that if he does go there he will think that this is the right procedure.

The following Question stood upon the Order Paper:

Mr. DODDS: To ask the Minister of Health, in view of the assurances given


in the introduction of Section 35 of the Mental Deficiency Act, 1913, that only dangerous and violent criminals would be detained in the Rampton State Institution, by what authority he detains at Rampton children and young people who are there on an application by their parents for institutional care only.

Mr. Dodds: As I am going to Rampton—[HON. MEMBERS: "To stay?"]—I shall not ask a supplementary question on this Question.

Mr. Vosper: Regulation 89 of the Mental Deficiency Regulations, 1948, provides that the Board of Control, if satisfied that a patient detained in an institution or certified house is of dangerous or violent propensities, may by order transfer him to a State institution.

Mr. Dodds: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]—whether he can guarantee that when I go to Rampton I shall get out again?

Teaching Hospital, South Wales

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Health what progress has been made in the preliminary preparations for the erection of a new South Wales teaching hospital; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The schedules of accommodation have been fully studied and the Welsh Board of Health sent its comments to the hospital authority and medical school on 3rd May. It is proposed to arrange an architectural competition when agreement has been reached on the detailed needs of the new hospital.

Mr. Gower: Would my right hon. Friend like to give even a rough estimate of when the plans are likely to be submitted?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I am afraid that depends in part on the result of the competition.

Mentally-Defective Children, Leeds Region

Dr. Broughton: asked the Minister of Health how many mentally-defective

children are waiting admission to residential hospital care in the area covered by the Leeds Regional Hospital Board.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The number was 162 at 31st March.

Dr. Broughton: As this is quite a large number, and as each case creates a serious position in the home, can the hon. Gentleman say how much time must elapse before the necessary accommodation is available for these children?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Forty-three of these cases are classified as urgent. The number waiting has gone down from 258 at the end of 1954. About twenty-five further places are being provided.

Radiographers

Mr. Swingler: asked the Minister of Health what was the salary scale for radiographers at the inception of the National Health Service; what increases have been granted since that date; and how the total increase compares, on a percentage basis, with the rise in the cost of living.

Mr. Vosper: As the Answer contains a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL. REPORT.

Mr. Swingler: I thank the Minister for his answer. I wonder whether he can say what is the last figure? Is he aware that radiographers all over the country are complaining that they are inadequately rewarded, and also that any rise they have been given since the Health Service came into being has not kept pace with the rises in prices or the rises given to other professional classes? Can the right hon. Gentleman comment on that?

Mr. Vosper: I dealt with this matter very fully last week. The basic salary has risen from £385 in 1950 to £485 in November, 1956. That is an increase of 35 per cent., which is slightly below the increase in the cost of living for a comparable period. I have already said that I am not satisfied with the position, and I have asked for a review.

Following is the answer:


Grade of Radiographer
At the inception of the National Health Service, 5th July,1948
1st October,1950
1st October.1951
1st February,1954
5th November,1956
Percentage increase of mean of scales in Col. 6mean over of scales in Col. 2


1
2
3
4
5
6
7



£
£
£
£
£



Basic
310 x 12½-360
335 x 12½-385
355 x 15-415
380 x 15-440
420 x 15-465 x 20-485
35


Single-handed.
(a) 347½ x 12½-360 or
375 x 10 -385 x 15-460
400 x 15-490
425 x 15-515
470 x 15-545 x 25-570
(a) 47



(b) 360 x 15-435 (according to nature of post or experience required)




(b) 31


Senior
360 x 15-435
385 x 15-445 x 20-465
415 x 15-490
440 x 15-515
485 x 15-545 x 25-570
33


Superintendent.
450 x 25-575 after 10 years' service in the grade by 25-600
475 x 25-625
500 x 25-650
530 x 25-680
I (in charge of 3–7 assistants) 585 x 25-710 x 40-750.
27







II (in charge of 8 or more assistants) 675 x 27½-812½ x 37½-850
45


The rise in the cost of living as measured by the Index of Retail Prices between July, 1948 and November. 1956, was 46 per cent.

Mr. Cower: asked the Minister of Health what is the present shortage of radiographers in North and South Wales, respectively; what is the number at present employed; and when he anticipates that the numbers now under training will meet present requirements.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Minister of Health if he is aware that, despite the increase in salary awarded to radiographers seven months ago, there is still a shortage in the Cardiff area; and what steps he is taking to improve the position.

Mr. Vosper: There is a shortage of ten whole-time radiographers, or 22 per cent., in North Wales, and twenty, or 12½ per cent., in South Wales: the shortage in the Cardiff area is five, or 11 per cent. The numbers at present employed are

thirty-five in North Wales and 139 in South Wales, of whom forty are employed in the Cardiff area. As regards the latter part of both Questions, I would refer the hon. Members to the reply given to the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Dr. Stross) and other hon. Members on 27th May.

Mental Patients

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health how many mentally deficient children, young persons and adults are now in appropriate institutions; how many are awaiting admission; how many applications for discharge were made and were granted during 1956; of these, how many applications for their re-admission were made by parents or guardians; and in how many instances certification and


removal to institutions were made despite resistance by parents or guardians.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: As the reply involves a number of figures, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the information:

At 31st December, 1956, the numbers in hospital were:—


under 16 years
…
…
7,628


16 years and over
…
…
53,447


Total
…
…
61,075

the numbers awaiting admission were:—


under 16 years
…
3,046


16 years and over
…
3,201


Total
…
6,247

The number discharged during 1956 was 2,828.

I regret that the further information asked for is not available.

Mr. Sorensen: asked the Minister of Health the number and percentage of mental patients in hospitals who are voluntary patients; what was the number who discharged themselves during 1956; how many certified patients absconded during that period and how many of those returned; what approximately was the number of discharged voluntary and certified patients, respectively, who were subsequently re-admitted to hospitals within the year; how many serious complaints were made in respect of treatment of detention; and how many of these were investigated and deemed justified by hospital committees.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The number of voluntary patients in hospitals on 31st December, 1956, was 43,485, a percentage of 29·9. The number who left during 1956 was 62,106. I regret that I have no record of the further information asked for.

Mr. Sorensen: Assuming that all this information in reply to this and a previous Question were available to the Royal Commission, to what extent does the hon. Gentleman feel it controverts or affirms the general conclusions of the Report of the Commission?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: I frankly think it would be very difficult to deal adequately with that in answer to a supplementary question.

Waiting Lists

Sir H. Linstead: asked the Minister of Health if he will give comparable figures for hospital waiting lists for 1954, 1955 and 1956.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: Altogether, 474,000 patients were on waiting lists on 31st December, 1954, and 455,000 a year later. The provisional figure for 1956 is 430,000.

Sir H. Linstead: While these figures are extremely gratifying, can my hon. Friend say whether they run fairly regularly over the whole field or whether there are still specialties, for example, tonsilectomy, where the improvement has not been shown?

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: There has been an improvement in the E.N.T. section. There has been quite a substantial fall. That is, however, still the longest waiting list—that and general
surgery.

Patients

Sir H. Linstead: asked the Minister of Health if he will give figures showing the annual number of patients per allocated bed in hospitals, other than mental hospitals, for the years 1954, 1955 and 1956.

Mr. Vaughan-Morgan: The figures, excluding beds at mental and mental deficiency hospitals are: 1954, 13·1; 1955, 13·2; 1956, 13·4.

The 1956 figure is provisional.

Oral Answers to Questions — RESTRICTIVE PRACTICES COURT

Mr. du Cann: asked the Attorney-General when the Restrictive Practices Court will come into operation.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manninghaim-Buller): Proceedings have been commenced in eight cases by the issue of notices of reference, but I am not yet in a position to say when the first sittings of the court will be held.

Mr. du Cann: Having regard to the very great volume of work which is awaiting these courts, would my right hon. and learned Friend not agree that the sooner they can go into operation the better, so that the Act may come into full


operation and uncertainty be removed from the minds of people who are active in commerce and in trade?

The Attorney-General: Considerable progress is being made. As I say, the first notices have been issued. The next stage is to obtain the representation orders. Five such orders have been obtained and negotiations in respect of two others are proceeding. One of them involves an organisation with 8,000 members, and negotiations as to that are bound to take a little time.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID

Mr. Collins: asked the Attorney-General what percentage of current applications for legal aid is rejected on the grounds that the disposable income of the applicant is above the maximum permitted limit: and what was the percentage in 1951.

The Attorney-General: Fourteen and three, respectively.

Mr. Collins: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that there are thousands of litigants for whom it is useless to apply because, owing to the depreciation in the £, the £8-a-week upper limit is quite unrealistic? Does he realise that this condition means that most adult industrial workers are now deprived of the means of justice? Will he not look into the matter with the object of raising the £8-a-week to a limit of, say, £10 a week?

The Attorney-General: It is the case that the rise in incomes has put a number of categories of persons who were within the limits of the legal aid scheme above those limits. This matter was considered by the Advisory Committee who reported that the financial conditions on legal aid do not in general prevent litigants from getting the assistance they should have.

Mr. Elwyn Jones: asked the Attorney-General why the proportion of applications for legal aid in the year ended March, 1957, which were rejected on financial grounds, was so much higher than the proportion rejected in the year ended March, 1956.

The Attorney-General: Because the number of applicants with resources above the financial limits for legal aid

was greater in the year ended March, 1957, than it was in the year ended March, 1956.

Oral Answers to Questions — GOVERNMENT INFORMATION SERVICES

Overseas Services (Review)

Mr. Ernest Davies: asked the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster when it is proposed to issue a White Paper containing proposals in regard to the overseas information services following the review he has undertaken.

The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Dr. Charles Hill): I hope it will be possible to make some announcement on this subject in the near future.

Mr. Davies: Does the Chancellor propose to publish a White Paper or simply to make an announcement? Does he not agree that it is highly desirable that a full statement should be made and should be available to the House so that we can have a debate on the facts?

Dr. Hill: It will be a full statement of the Government's conclusions in the appropriate form, White Paper or otherwise.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the Chancellor be good enough to tell us what happened at Chequers over the week-end?

Dr. Hill: A pleasant yet industrious week-end.

Mr. Greenwood: Will the White Paper contain a statement of the principles upon which we propose to conduct our overseas propaganda as well as the various organisational changes which are envisaged?

Dr. Hill: While I am unable to anticipate its content, the points made by the hon. Member are in mind.

Mr. Shinwell: Was not that a very poor answer which the right hon. Gentleman gave me? Were there not fun and games at Chequers? Cannot he be a little more forthcoming?

Mr. Popplewell: Will the right hon. Gentleman say why these economy cuts are taking place in the information services overseas, particularly at Hamburg? We have had very useful information


services at Hamburg, but they have suddenly been cut and taken away from the centre of the town, with the result that the necessary information which is essential for selling our ideas overseas has been seriously curtailed. Will the White Paper cover the whole of these questions?

Dr. Hill: What has been under consideration is the re-deployment of the information services generally, but if the hon. Member wishes to obtain information on particular points perhaps he would put a Question on the Order Paper.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

Retirement Pensioners (Information)

Sir K. Joseph: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance in how many cases local authority welfare departments have agreed with his Department for a circular from the welfare department to be included in the envelope containing the first pension issue book so as to inform those newly retired of the services available for them as has been done in the case of Salford.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): Forty-one local authority welfare departments have arranged for my Department to help in various ways to make known to old people details of their welfare services.

Sir K. Joseph: While thanking my right hon. Friend for that answer, may I ask whether he would not agree that, in view of the revelations from Sunderland and Salford, it is clear that a large number of old people do not appear to know their rights and that this form of cooperation with local authorities will be very useful?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I agree with my hon. Friend that this co-operation with local authorities is very valuable. My local offices have instruction to give help whenever they can in this way.

Convention on Social Security

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance when he expects the Convention on Social Security with Belgium to be ratified.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: My right hon. and learned. Friend the Foreign Secretary hopes to lay the Convention before Parliament on 25th June. Subject to the readiness of the Belgian Government, Her Majesty's Government will be ready to exchange instruments of ratification after the customary twenty-one sitting days have elapsed.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

Slaughterhouses

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what slaughterhouses are at present being operated by his Department; and what profit is being made by their use.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): Only the one at Grimsby. Negotiations for the sale of this slaughterhouse are contemplated and might be prejudiced by publication at this time of the financial results of operation under Government occupation.

Mr. Willey: Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say what the Ministry is doing in the slaughterhouse business? I thought it got out of that years ago. Why is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary so coy about this matter? Surely, if he has made a profit he should be willing to tell us?

Mr. Godber: Whether profit or loss, it is better to leave it until these negotiations are completed. In the case of this one slaughterhouse, the local authority was not willing to operate it until the negotiations for sale had taken place.

Forestry (Preservation of Ancient Monuments and Roads)

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what instructions he gives to the Forestry Commission so that their replanting shall not interfere with the preservation of ancient roads, monuments, etc.

Mr. Godber: A map of every area to be acquired by the Commission is sent to the ancient monuments inspectorate of the Ministry of Works. The inspectorate notifies the Commission of any important


monuments, etc., which in their view should be preserved and arrangements are agreed for their protection.

Captain Pilkington: Can the Joint Parliamentary Secretary say how many cases of complaint there have been that ancient monuments have not been preserved?

Mr. Godber: There have been one or two, but on the whole the number has been small.

Captain Pilkington: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will ask the Forestry Commission to deforest the stretch of Roman road between Crowthorne and Bagshot wherever planting has interfered with its preservation.

Mr. Godber: No planting has been carried out by the Forestry Commission on that section of the Roman road known as the "Devil's Highway" between Crowthorne and Bagshot which is on land in their occupation. Some natural seedling growth of pines does take place on the road and this is cleared periodically.

Potatoes

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the estimated cost to the Exchequer of the surplus potatoes destroyed or not used.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend regrets that no reliable estimate can yet be made of the cost of disposing of potatoes not sold for human consumption.

Mr. Willey: Cannot the Joint Parliamentary Secretary make an approximate estimate of the loss on these potatoes? Can he assure the House that every step is taken to avoid loss of the potatoes themselvs? Surely we can dispose of these potatoes in some way?

Mr. Godber: It would be unwise to speculate what the total figure will be, but I can give the hon. Gentleman an assurance that the Potato Marketing Board is doing what it can to dispose of these surplus potatoes. It is a very inelastic commodity and we cannot easily step up sales.

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food the estimated subsidy on potatoes exported this year.

Mr. Godber: Some 67,000 tons of potatoes of the 1956 crop bought under the guarantee have been sold abroad for processing. The loss on disposals of this type, whether at home or abroad, is about £10 per ton.

Mr. Willey: Is this matter being reviewed by the Government in reviewing the export of foodstuffs which are being subsidised? The Joint Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate that representations are being made to his right hon. Friend about dumping and that we shall be in an impossible position if, at the same time, we are exporting foodstuffs which are subsidised by our taxpayers.

Mr. Godber: I do not think that it arises so much in regard to potatoes. These are surplus potatoes sold for processing which are available for sale in this country and abroad at the same price, which I would say is approximately their actual value.

Mr. Champion: If these potatoes can be processed abroad, why cannot we process them and save the import of feedingstuffs to some extent?

Mr. Godber: We are processing very considerable quantities. We have quite a good story to tell about the quantities that have been processed at sugar beet factories. All the available space not required for repairing in the sugar beet factories has been used.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Would not the Joint Parliamentary Secretary agree that the surplus this year is entirely attributable to a harvest which was as much above the average as last year's harvest was below the average?

Mr. Godber: Generally speaking that would be true, although the acreage showed a small increase last year. Potato production is variable from season to season and it is difficult to get exact similarity.

Mr. Willey: No doubt the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will realise that we have to expect an unexpected surplus of foodstuffs now and that we must make provision to deal with it, although on an exceptional season basis.

Mr. Godber: I remember that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends last year in this House were high in their


indignation because the housewife had to pay such high prices for potatoes. That shows the difficulties that arise.

Air Commodore Harvey: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the possible shortage of cattle feedingstuffs in the months ahead if the drought continues?

Mr. Godber: That is a possibility, but I do not rate it as a very serious one at the moment.

Price Reviews (Small Farmers)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will take steps to afford small farmers adequate representation for the price reviews; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is satisfied that the interests of small farmers are adequately represented under the present arrangements for price reviews.

Mr. Gower: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is evidence that small farmers have a general sense of grievance, particularly in areas like mid-Wales? Will he reconsider this matter with a view to removing these grievances which seem fairly general in the fringe areas and marginal areas?

Mr. Godber: I would not say that the small farmer problem relates only to Wales; it is very much more widespread. I would think that the proper channel is the National Farmers' Unions of the three countries, who nominate the representatives for these discussions. I should also have thought that the representation that they provide is the best-based one that we could get.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Domestic Coal Allocation

Mr. Hunter: asked the Paymaster-General whether he is yet in a position to give an approximate date for the ending of coal rationing.

Mr. A. Roberts: asked the Paymaster-General if the improvement in coal output will now permit the ending of domestic coal rationing.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Paymaster-General whether he is now in a position

to announce the date of the ending of coal rationing.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton): I am not in a position to add to the Answer my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General gave on 6th May to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Cooper).

Mr. Hunter: Will the Parliamentary Secretary take into consideration the great increase in coal production in this country and the large supplies held, in arriving at the approximate date to end coal rationing? Or will there be the same delay as with petrol rationing?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that there has been a large increase in over-all production. In fact, so far this year the output of large coal has gone down by about one million tons. It is impossible to say when we can end the control of house-coal distribution but, as my right hon. Friend the Paymaster-General has already pointed out, the matter is under examination at the moment.

Mr. Robens: Will not large coal production steadily go down year by year—that is expected—and therefore there can be no question of ending coal-rationing schemes unless the Government are prepared to go on importing large quantities of large coal from the United States and elsewhere? Will the Parliamentary Secretary consult his right hon. Friend with a view to making small coal available to householders by the provision of adequate appliances that will burn that type of coal?

Mr. Renton: The right hon. Gentleman is, in general, quite right in what he says. We have enjoined upon the National Coal Board the necessity for making consumers aware of the possibilities of consuming smaller sizes of coal in larger quantities.

Mr. Bowles: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that some of my constituents are getting more coal than their allowance because coal dust is being blown off the piles of coal which are stacked near their houses?

Mr. Renton: I am not aware of that, which is quite another question.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISARMAMENT

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what progress has been made by the Disarmament Committee towards accepting the United States proposals for limiting further tests of atomic weapons and agreeing to an area of mutual inspection of bases.

The Minister of State, Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore): I do not at present, wish to add to what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said on 28th May about the progress of the disarmament negotiations.

Mr. Fletcher: Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that the public are vitally interested in, if a little baffled by, the proceedings of the Disarmament Commission? Would he agree that the best prospects for disarmament appear to reside in an agreement for the limitation of nuclear tests plus an agreement for mutual inspection of all weapons of warfare?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Of course, those are two major considerations. It may well be that the negotiations in the subcommittee are rather baffling, but I do not think it makes the position any clearer to suggest, as this Question does, that the United States have put forward proposals limited to either the limitation of tests or simply to agreeing areas of mutual inspection. Both those proposals form part of a much larger scheme of disarmament and of inspection.

Orders of the Day — HOUSING AND TOWN DEVELOPMENT (SCOTLAND) BILL

Order for consideration as amended (in the Standing Committee), read.

Bill recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of the Amendment to Clause 3, page 4, line 17, standing on the Notice Paper in the name of Mr. Maclay—[Mr. Maclay]

Bill immediately considered in Committee.

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Clause 3.—(ADDITIONAL EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF APPROVED HOUSES IN CERTAIN BLOCKS OF FLATS.)

3.31 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. J. Nixon Browne): I beg to move, in page 4, line 17, after "storeys", to insert:
(inclusive of any storey constructed for use for purposes other than those of a dwelling)
This Amendment is consequential on the deletion from the Bill in Committee of subsection (4) of this Clause. The Amendment is necessary as the definition of "block of flats" in Section 184 (1) of the principal Act excludes storeys not used for dwellings, whereas here we wish 'to include such storeys. As an example, if, in a six storey building, there are four storeys of housing on top of two storeys of shops and offices, the four storeys of housing will qualify for the additional subsidy.

Mr. A. Woodburn: We on this side of the Committee have no objection to this Amendment. I hope that in the future there will be a good many common services included in these blocks of flats. We certainly want the houses to get the benefit.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended (in the Standing Committee and on recommittal), considered.

Clause 1.—(APPROVED HOUSES FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXCHEQUER CONTRI- BUTIONS UNDER PART I.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move in page 1, line 12, after "completed", to insert:
after the commencement of this Act".
This Amendment clarifies the position of houses approved on or after 1st August, 1956, and completed before the passing of this Bill. The House will remember that, in Committee, we thought that subsection (4) should be amended, but this seems a more appropriate way of doing things.
In effect, before a house can now become an approved house qualifying for the new subsidy, it has not only to have been received for tender approval by my right hon. Friend on or after 1st August, 1956, but it also has to have been completed after the date of the enactment. It is not expected that many houses will be involved in getting the old subsidy up to 24th May. Out of 13,368 houses approved for subsidy under the new rates, only 30 have been completed.

Mr. William Ross: We are grateful, even at this stage, for the recognition by the Government that it was necessary to make absolutely clear the definition in respect of houses which would attract the new subsidy. We cannot pretend to be entirely satisfied so far with what the Government have done; this Amendment is far too late, anyway, but it now means that the Government have no right to apply a new subsidy before they have statutory provision to do so.
The Government have not endeared themselves to many local authorities. It should have been obvious from the start to the Government that they had no right to say that local authorities would get the lower subsidy until such time as a new Act had been passed giving the right to change the existing provisions. I can assure the Joint Under-Secretary of State that many local authorities and other people concerned in this matter, were surprised, having read the OFFICIAL REPORT of the proceedings in Committee, that all the Government said in July last year, they would still be able to get the old subsidy if their houses were finished before the passing of this Measure.
We were told on a previous occasion that this provision would apply to only about half a dozen houses. I am not satisfied that that is the position. It may be that the Joint Under-Secretary has more information on the number of houses affected in Scotland, and I should be very glad indeed to hear how many he thinks will be affected by this change. Actually, it is not really a change, but it is now definitely made clear that houses will get the old subsidy, despite the date when they were approved, even after 1st August last year, so long as they were completed before the passing of this Measure.
I would be grateful if the hon. Gentleman could tell us how many he anticipates will be covered by this provision. We have no grounds for objecting to this Amendment, although we still do not consider that the position is satisfactory in relation to the dates.

Mr. J. N. Browne: If I may have permission to speak again, I did say that only 30 have been completed to date. It will be a very small number, but I cannot give the exact number to the date of the passing of the Measure.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 2.—(EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS (GENERAL).)

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. William Grant): I beg to move, in page 3, line 13, to leave out "which is" and to insert "who are".
We had some argument in Committee on the proper number to go with the words "local authority." This is, therefore, purely a drafting Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 3, line 39, after "enactments)", to insert:
 the payment of any Exchequer contribution under paragraph (b), (d) or (e) of the last foregoing subsection shall be subject to such conditions as may be specified by the Secretary of State when undertaking to pay the contribution and".
This Amendment arises from a matter raised in Committee. It is designed to make perfectly clear that, in respect of what I call the industrial and overspill subsidies, the Secretary of State has power to make certain conditions and, if these


conditions are not fulfilled, the subsidy may be reduced or withdrawn. It really follows what has been a practice in housing policy in Scotland.
For example, under Section 73 of the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, a condition is laid down in regard to houses provided for agricultural workers. They qualify for an additional subsidy, and, if the condition is broken, the subsidy may be reduced or withdrawn. This Amendment is intended to make perfectly clear that the Secretary of State has those powers, and they can he exercised in relation to these subsidies.
If I might say so, Mr. Speaker, I think that the next two Amendments, in page 3, lines 40 and 44, go with this one; they tie up the whole matter, as it were, and make it clear.

Mr. Woodburn: The Solicitor-General has not said whether the Secretary of State will take any powers to pay any contributions towards this industrial extension into town planning. This Amendment is more restrictive than comprehensive. I thought that, after his visit to the General Assembly, the right hon. and learned Gentleman would have come back with a much more Christian spirit in his attitude towards our Amendments and approach to the Bill.

Mr. E. G. Willis: As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has said, this provision is much more restrictive than what we passed in Committee, and we ought to have a much better and fuller explanation from the Solicitor-General about what he has in mind. After telling us that, if a local authority provides houses for the purpose of industry, or if houses are provided in fulfilment of an overspill agreement or by an exporting authority, they will then receive the £42, he now tells us that they will be subject to conditions to be laid down by the Secretary of State.
What is said to be the generous attitude of the Government is now seen to be not generous at all. Local authorities are to be subject to conditions, about which we know nothing. Either the Joint Under-Secretary or the Solicitor-General should tell us what the Government have in mind about the conditions under which these grants will be given.

I am quite sure that the local authorities will want to have some idea of what they are, and it would probably help to relieve their feelings if a much fuller statement were made about it.

Mr. Ross: We had occasion, in Committee, to refer to the Government Front Bench, in respect of their subsidy provisions, as the "league of frightened men". This is just another indication of the terror which creeps into the hearts of Tories when there is a danger of a subsidy being paid to somebody who deserves it. What they really mean by the insertion of this afterthought is that they want to be in a position where they pay as little as possible for as short a time as possible for as few houses as possible.
Anyone who reads the limiting conditions to the grant of any subsidy at all in respect of approved houses will find that the local authorities can hardly move, from the minute they start to think about building houses, for conditions being laid upon them by the Secretary of State. Considering only the Government's general powers in being able to withhold or discontinue subsidies, it is plain that, in moving this Amendment, the Government are asking for far too much. They are covering themselves at every conceivable turn to ensure that no local authority will get an extra shilling out of them.
3.45 p.m.
The effect will be far reaching. It is put to us that this has always happened in relation to agricultural houses; let it now be done in respect of industrial houses and houses covered by paragraphs (d) and (e). Paragraphs (d) and (e) refer to houses provided under overspill agreements. An overspill agreement itself must be approved by the Secretary of State. If the agreement is not carried out, the Secretary of State can go so far as to cause an inquiry, and, if the circumstances are proved, he can go beyond that and take over the whole powers of a local authority, without this new provision which is to be inserted.
What is the point of it? Would the whole local authority structure of Scotland collapse if these words were not put in? What it really boils down to is this. The Government are afraid that a local authority, for a short period, will get away with having a subsidy paid when, in the


opinion of the Secretary of State, it should not. They have all the powers in the world at the moment to be able to deal with such a case if it arose, and there is no need for the Government, who have said so much about freedom for local authorities, now to tie them up in financial chains by imposing conditions which have not yet been explained.
The Solicitor-General says that this is in the general stream of the ordinary kind of provision enacted in respect of something else. With respect, that is no justification at all for it being put in here. Indeed, if he had any experience at all of how this power of control possessed by the Secretary of State in respect of agricultural houses works, he would understand a little more about it. In the last month, I have had put to me three or four cases of people who have been thrown out of agricultural houses because of a seeming infringement of conditions laid down.
The Government should take this Amendment back. They have plenty of time. The Bill has been a long time on its way; the policy was announced in July last year, and the Bill was not printed until January this year, so the Opposition ought not to be blamed for anything which has happened in relation to it. There is time enough for the Government again to consult with the local authorities and ascertain whether, in the experience of working these provisions in relation to agriculture, it is desirable—let alone necessary—to introduce it in relation to houses provided for industry and overspill.
The Government are so hedging about this overspill business and the local authorities concerned with conditions that no self-respecting local authority will lay itself open to be interfered with. If the Government really want the overspill provisions of the Bill to work, there must be more indication of confidence between the Government themselves and the local auhorities. We have seen already in Committee that the Government are just not sure, but they are determined that, if any powers are taken by them, they will be powers to save a little money, irrespective of the effect psychologically that that will have upon local authorities who may or may not be thinking of entering into overspill agreements. The Government are not being at all wise.

This afterthought Amendment is not necessary, and it would be far better not to have it.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: May I say that this is not an afterthought? The point was raised in Committee and I said—I still believe it to be the case—that strictly, these powers may not be necessary. The Secretary of State already has certain powers under Sections 128 and 129 of the 1950 Act, but I would not put it beyond a court of law to decide that I was wrong. The hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) has more than once decided that I have been wrong and a court of law might do the same thing.

Mr. Ross: It is hardly correct for the hon. and learned Member to say that I have decided he was wrong. Our experience in Committee was that he admitted time and time again that he was wrong.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: When I am wrong, I always admit it, which is more than I can say for the hon. Member. The power probably exists already. I will not go further than that.
We want—and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has frequently made the point—to make the Bill self-contained, so that somebody looking at it will know what it means. [Interruption.] All Bills are difficult to understand, I quite agree. The Bill makes it perfectly clear that the Secretary of State can lay down these conditions in regard to these two types of houses for overspill and the needs of industry.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East raised a good point when he asked what conditions the Secretary of State intends to lay down. They will be similar to those as to terms of occupancy laid down for houses qualifying at the moment for the agricultural subsidy. As we discussed in Committee, we cannot, particularly in regard to industry, specify any particular term of years for which those conditions should apply, because after five or ten or, possibly, twelve years it may be found that the needs of industry have been met. I assure the hon. Member that in that case, the intention is clearly to continue paying the subsidy, even though the houses are no longer needed for the purpose which we have in mind. I want to make that absolutely clear.

Mr. Willis: What period have the Government in mind? Is it five years, or how long?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: It would vary from place to place. One place might be expanding rapidly and have new industries coming in and it might be ten or fifteen years before the needs of the incoming industrial workers were met. It is a question of circumstances in each case. That is the type of condition, as exists in the case of the agricultural workers.
This is not a new matter. It is really making the position clear that the Secretary of State has the powers which I think he has under the 1950 Act, so that local authorities know where they stand.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 3 line 40, leave out from "any" to first "or" in line 42 and insert "such contribution".

In line 44, leave out from "any" to end of line 45 and insert:
condition so specified in relation thereto".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Clause 3.—(ADDITIONAL EXCHEQUER CON- TRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF APPROVED HOUSES IN CERTAIN BLOCKS OF FLATS.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 4, line 40, to leave out subsection (3).
This Amendment is consequential on the Government's acceptance of the Amendment by the Opposition to the effect that the high flat subsidy should apply to houses in any block of six or more storeys. Subsection (3) of the Clause is, therefore, no longer necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 4.—(ADDITIONAL EXCHEQUER CON- TRIBUTIONS IN RESPECT OF APPROVED HOUSES IN REMOTE AREAS.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, to leave out "consent" and to insert "sanction".
This is a minor Amendment, but in view of our discussion in Committee and the fact that the word in the principal Act is "sanction" and that the Secretary of State expressed himself as being quite willing to accept either "consent" or "sanction", I trust that we will now accept the amendment.

Mr. Ross: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General For Scotland: As the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) has said, I did, in effect, undertake to recommend the House to accept this Amendment. I think that the word he suggests is the better one. That is all I need to say about it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5.—(TERMINATION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES' OBLIGATION TO MAKE CERTAIN CONTRIBUTIONS, AND POWER TO CARRY OTHER SUMS TO CREDIT OF HOUSING REVENUE ACCOUNTS.)

Mr. Thomas Fraser: I beg to move, in page 5. line 28, after "shall", to insert:
in respect of each completed approved house.
What we had in mind in putting down the Amendment—and I hope that its effect is what we intend it to be—is that the local authorities will be relieved of the obligation to make a contribution as set out in the earlier statutes referred to in subsection (1) of Clause 5 in respect only of houses which are to receive the new Exchequer subsidy; that is to say, completed approved houses, approved houses being, I understand, houses for which building approval was given or or after 1st August, 1956, and which are completed after the Bill becomes an Act.
The case for the Amendment is fairly clear. The Government have seen fit, very properly, to continue the existing Exchequer subsidies in respect of all houses built by local authorities up to now and they have reduced the Exchequer subsidy only in respect of houses to be completed in the future. As the Clause stands, local authorities are to be relieved of making a statutory rate contribution, not only in respect of houses to be completed in future, but in respect of all the houses they have ever completed at any time—that is, all the houses they at present own. We seek to limit this relief from the obligation to make a statutory rate contribution to the houses yet to be completed.
It would be a serious matter if the Amendment were not made and local authorities accepted the freedom that is being given to them and discontinued making a contribution from rates in


respect of their existing pool of houses. There is reason to believe that some local authorities in Scotland have already anticipated this legislation. I have had a look at the rents scheme recently determined by Dumfries County Council. I understand that the Secretary of State is not responsible for a rent scheme made by a local authority and I am not asking him to concern himself with the rent scheme as such. I merely wish him to take into account that Dumfries County Council, in determining its rents scheme, appears to have anticipated the passage of this Clause in the Bill and would appear to have anticipated its release from an obligation to make a particular rate contribution in respect of the houses that it now owns.
4.0 p.m.
We find, in consequence, that their anticipating this Bill's becoming an Act of Parliament has led them to determine a level of rents which will prove to be quite intolerable in Dumfries-shire, but which will certainly save them the embarrassment of a long waiting list of applicants for houses, because the people of Dumfries-shire will not be able to afford the rents to be charged. If other local authorities were to do the same thing it would then appear that the Government had solved the housing problem overnight, for the waiting lists would disappear. If rents and rates for a local authority house in my constituency were to be fixed at £2 15s. a week the waiting list would dwindle. Anticipating this legislation, the local authority in Dumfries-shire is charging tenants £95 a year for temporary houses which it got from the Ministry of Works for a rental of £26 a year. That would seem to me to be quite intolerable.
I hope that the Secretary of State will, in these circumstances, accept the Amendment. We much regret the inclusion in the Bill of Clause 5 for the termination of the local authorities' obligation to make a contribution from rates, thus leaving them free to decide whether or not to make a contribution and, if they decide to do so, to decide what amount of contribution they will make. We think they should make a statutory contribution for houses to be built in the future as well as for houses built in the past, but, in any case, it would seem to us to be quite intolerable that the Government

should terminate the local authorities' obligation to make a rate contribution for those houses which have been built and have been subsidised during the years by grants from the Exchequer and approved by this House on the understanding that the local authorities would themselves make contributions from the rates.
Local authorities even now are authorised to consider applications for assistance in the improving of existing houses. An owner-occupier may make an application to his local authority for a sum to improve his house. If the local authority approves the improvement scheme and a grant is paid it is obliged to pay from its rating account 25 per cent. of the cost of the grant; that is to say, it is obliged to make a contribution in accordance with the old ratio of three parts from the Exchequer and one part from local finances. It would be very wrong if we were to relieve the local authority of any obligation to make any contribution from rates for houses which it has built over the years and has let to its citizens, while we maintain the obligation upon the local authority to spend some of the ratepayers' money to improve the houses of people who—not always, but generally speaking—are much better off.
This is a reasonable Amendment and ought not to be resisted by the Government. The Government resisted this kind of Amendment in Committee, but now they have got the main proposal through, that is to say, the termination of the local authorities' obligation in respect of future houses, I hope they will concede to us that contributions from rates would remain in respect of those houses already existing.

Mr. William Hannan: I beg to second the Amendment.
I do not propose to go over all the arguments again, but I would remind the Government that at present the local authority pays approximately one-third, and contributes, for houses of from one to three apartments, £13 5s.; for four-apartment houses, £14 5s.; and, for five-apartment houses, £15 10s. Under the Bill and with the reduced subsidy of £24, the local authority will be asked to pay £8, and proportionately.
Under Clause 5 as drafted the local authorities are to be relieved of any contribution whatsoever. The position is far


too serious for that to be allowed to happen. In Glasgow, the position will he lamentable. Our case is that there is not a social responsibility only upon the Government to provide some help in the provision of houses, but also upon the community in Glasgow itself.
Considering all the circumstances and the seriousness of the situation, we cannot but come to the conclusion that the real purpose of the Government, first, by their proposal to reduce the subsidy, and then by their proposal to relieve the local authority of its responsibility for making some contribution, is to stop house building altogether. That is what the effect of the Bill will be. We have seen signs of this happening in Scotland. Only this morning we read in the Press of a local authority's having decided to stop building because of the frightful cost. My hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has referred to the position prevailing in Dumfries-shire. All hon. Members from Scotland know what is happening.
The Government cannot escape their responsibility by saying that this is a matter for the local authorities alone. By means of this Bill some local authorities will evade their responsibility by pointing out that the Bill allows that. They will say, to coin a phrase anew, "The law allows it and, therefore, the court awards it." We appeal once more to the Government to reconsider this matter, and I hope that they will at least be prepared to say they will consider the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: I am disappointed that the Joint Under-Secretary of State has not risen to accept this Amendment. [HON. MEMBERS: "What?"] We have seen him before rise hurriedly with open arms to welcome an Amendment—when, admittedly, it did not cost the Government very much to do it. This Amendment would not cost the Government a penny. You, Mr. Speaker, will agree that if it would cost the Government a penny you would not have called the Amendment. This Amendment relates to the local authorities.
Hitherto, one of the conditions for getting a subsidy has been that the local authority also has had to pay a subsidy out of the rates for houses provided.

There might have been some logic in the Government's doing what they are by this Bill, cutting the national subsidy for new houses, if they had given power to the local authorities to do the same thing in respect of houses still to be built, but what logic is there in giving the local authorities this power to terminate what has been a contract relating to every subsidy granted by every Government since 1919?
Our Amendment draws a dividing line between houses which have already been built in Scotland and those which are still to be built. Those still to be built would get the national subsidy from the Government; and the local authorities would be free to decide whether or lot to give subsidy. Acceptance of our Amendment would mean that the contracts made, and the existing statutory provisions, would still rule for those houses which have already been built. Let us realise that this cutting of the subsidy does not affect those houses for which subsidies are still being paid under previous Acts. The contract which the Government made with the local authority stands.
We say that the provision of that contract, that there should be a statutory subsidy from the local rates, should equally stand. We do not think it right that the Government should decide now to rescind the provisions in the Housing, Town Planning, etc. (Scotland) Act, 1919, in the Housing Act, 1923, in the Wheatley Act of 1924 and in all the Acts of Parliament which annually provide a subsidy on condition that the local authority equally provides a subsidy. Therefore, from the retrospective aspect, we think this legislation wrong.
The general effect of adopting the Clause unamended is to give power to raise rents and that it indicates that the Government want local authorities to raise rents throughout Scotland. It can have no other effect, if the local authorities take advantage of the Clause, the removal of the local subsidy will mean that the rents will have to be increased by that amount for every house built in Scotland since 1919 on which subsidy of some kind is still paid.
In Dumfries, the county authority is so ready to accept the advice of the Government that the rent and rates for "prefabs," those blots on the landscape,


are £130 a year. Is it not shocking that a Government which call upon the workers for a wage freeze and whose Prime Minister lectures us every weekend and says, "Let us have some stability" should go out of their way to indicate to the local authorities that what they really want is a rise in rents?
Many of those concerned in Dumfries are miners. Far be it from hon. Members opposite to lecture miners who are now faced with having to pay £130 a year for "prefabs." Amy of those affected are agricultural workers. What crazy kind of policy is this that the Government should lecture us not to do anything that will affect price stability and should then go gratuitously out of their way to indicate to local authorities that they should raise rents all round? It is bad law and bad principle to undo what amounts to a condition of contract in granting subsidies, which has existed from 1919 to 1957. In justice to the tenants and to make sense of economic policy it would be far better to accept the Amendment.
We on this side of the House tried to wipe the whole thing out in Committee. We recognise that the Government are determined to go on with it, but if they must start a new policy it would be far better to start it with houses that are still to be built. If the Government retain all the obligations entered into under Acts of Parliament in respect of houses already built, then, equally, the local authorities should accept and continue to carry out their obligations in respect of those same houses.
I have no doubt that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Scotland will tell me that it does not matter and that the local authorities can please themselves. Parliament decided in 1919, 1923, 1924, 1931, 1933, right up to 1952 and again up to last year that local authorities must make a contribution. Surely Parliament had in mind that it was only right that if the Government were providing their share the local authorities should also provide theirs. That principle still stands.
The hon. Gentleman may say that the local authorities will continue to pay the subsidies. Many of them will, but there are local authorities like Dumfries County Council which will be only too glad to

say, "This is what the Government want us to do." Like loyal Tories, they will follow the Government, just as loyal hon. Members opposite will go into the Lobby at the behest of the Chief Whip.

Mr. Cyril Bence: They are not so loyal now in the country.

Mr. Ross: They are just as loyal, but there are not so many of them.
I hope that the Government will learn sense not from Hornsey but from Edinburgh, South and that they will reject this idea of encouraging local authorities to raise rents in this way. Parliament laid this duty upon the local authorities and meant it. The Government should confine this provision to houses which are still to be built and should leave the position of those built under contractual arrangements between the local authority and the Government as it is at the moment. I sincerely hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will accept the Amendment.

4.15 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Members for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) and Kilmarnock (Mr. W. Ross) have sought to relate the fact that the Government have honoured their contract in respect of old houses to the need for retaining the statutory rate contribuion in its present form, but there is no parallel. In the one case the Government agreed to make a payment towards the local authority account, whereas the local authority contribution was of two sorts. One was a statutory rate contribution and the other, if necessary, a contribution from the general rate fund which had to square the housing account of the local authority. Both hon. Members mentioned Dumfries County Council. I appreciate, as they do, that this is not the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Ross: It is the consequence of the action of the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Browne: According to the information in our possession, the Dumfries County Council proposes to make a rate contribution which is likely to be more than the notional statutory rate contribution, that is, more than the amount fixed by the present law. The hon. Member


for Hamilton appears to dissent, but I have had the opportunity of checking that information again. It is not, of course, my right hon. Friend's responsibility and the information may be incorrect.
I have studied the Amendment with great sympathy. The main issue that faced us in Committee was the question whether or not there should be a statutory rate contribution. Hon. Members have done their best, but I cannot see the merit of the Amendment. The average Exchequer contribution in Scotland is £20·13 per house, and the average rate contribution is not just over £6, as it ought to be, but £21·58 which is higher than the average Exchequer contribution. Therefore, it is surely up to any Government to face the fact that local authorities, in fixing rents, long ago threw overboard the classical conception of the kind of payment to be made from the rates to the housing account. Each local authority has made its own decision about the correct division to be made of the burden to be borne in the housing account between rents and rates.

Mr. Woodburn: When this matter was discussed before, I put a question to the hon. Gentleman. I did not blame him for not being able to answer then, hut I think that the matter would be clearer if he could tell us within this average which, if any, local authorities do not pay the minimum, or just pay it. The average might indicate to us that every local authority pays more than the minimum, so it would be interesting to hear to what local authorities the Amendment would apply.

Mr. Browne: During the Committee stage, I answered ten thousand and one questions satisfactorily, but I remembered that we did not know the answer to that question. However, I read the HANSARD concerned and I thought the right hon. Gentleman might ask the question now, and I have the information for him. The following local authorities seem to be limiting their rate contribution to the statutory rate contribution. There is one large burgh, Perth. There are the following small burghs, Cove, Culross, Fraserburgh, Kelso, Kilrenny, Lochgilphead, Lochmaben. This information relates to 1955 to 1956, except in the case of Kelso, when it is for 1954–55.

Mr. John Rankin: I asked another question on this important issue during the Committee stage and perhaps the hon. Gentleman has brought along the answer to that one, too. It was, what difference will this make to the rents if a local authority decides to pay no contribution towards the cost of housing?

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman would have to give me notice of that question, and tell me to which local authority he was referring.

Mr. Rankin: It is an important one.

Mr. Browne: I have answered the question of the right hon. Gentleman and, to bring the House back to what I was saying, it was secondly, within the average I quoted, that each local authority has to make its own decision of the correct division of the burden of housing cost between those who pay rent and those who pay rates.
Thirdly, and this answers the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock to some extent, because there is such a large pool of subsidies, the Government have decided that it is right no longer to relate the subsidy to the cost of the house. If the Government have done that, why should we insist on the local authority continuing still so to do?

Mr. Fraser: But surely, in respect of houses which the local authorities possess at present, the Government have not made the change suggested by the hon. Gentleman. The Government are observing the contractual arrangement to pay the subsidy as laid down in the Statute in respect of those houses.

Mr. Browne: That is a fair point, but we are now treating the contractual arrangement as a pool, and we are no longer relating the individual house—some built when interest rates were low and the subsidy was generous, and others built at other times—to the Government subsidy. We are simply going on with the contracts we have already made. In requiring the local authorities to deal with their housing accounts, we are no longer requiring them to take that into consideration.
All we say is that the local authorities are obliged to square their housing accounts, and we can see no point in forcing them to pay from their rate fund a certain definite sum which will not be


related to the new houses that are built under this Amendment, and which, as subsidies come to an end in the future, will be gradually a reducing sum. For that reason, I found it difficult to understand the idea behind the Amendment, which, I feel, is illogical.
Our view is that local authorities should manage their own affairs, and we want this to continue. I know that the hon. Gentleman does not agree, but that is the realistic policy of this Bill, to ensure only that the housing accounts are balanced, and to trust the local authorities to play fair with their people, both as rent payers and as ratepayers. In other words, because we on this side of the House trust the local authorities we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Thomas Hubbard: I wish that the hon. Gentleman the Joint Under-Secretary or his colleagues, speaking in terms of this Bill and this Clause, would sometimes take into consideration the people who still require to be housed by the local authorities. They always seem to miss out the human element.
Under the existing arrangements, local authorities have contracted to pay a ratio towards the subsidy of a new house. By so doing, in conjunction with the existing subsidies, up to the time of this Bill they have been able to a large extent, and progressively, to house people decently. Slums are becoming less though they have not been eradicated, it is true. There are still large numbers of people who require houses. This means, in effect, that if the local authorities are to be allowed to contract out of the old arrangement, the greater will be their inability to meet housing needs in the future.

Mr. Browne: Mr. Browne  indicated dissent.

Mr. Hubbard: Of course it will. If a local authority can afford to house its people after this Bill becomes an Act, it will do so on much smaller subsidies than hitherto it could get from the Government.

Mr. Browne: I am trying to follow the hon. Gentleman. I must point out that local authorities have not got to do that unless they want to do so. They are not forced to pay a smaller amount. If they wish, they can continue to pay what they pay now.

Mr. Hubbard: I am trying to get the hon. Gentleman to look at this matter not from the point of view of what the local authority can pay, but how the Bill will restrict the people still waiting to be housed. If a local authority has no obligation to pay, it will be almost impossible for it, without that contractual amount from the rates, to house its people. Indeed, the Secretary of State for Scotland has himself said on many occasions when we have spoken about the future difficulties of building houses under this Measure to meet the ordinary need, "Yes, but they have been drawing subsidies in the past, and they will be able to pool them." The right hon. Gentleman mentioned that again this afternoon.
Therefore, by refusing to accept this Amendment the Government are making it possible for bad local authorities, who will not pay the rate contribution, to put people in the same position as those in Dumfries. That is the point of this Amendment. The question of Dumfries has arisen because they have "jumped the gun". There is no doubt that, unless this Amendment is accepted, many other local authorities will follow suit, and we shall find in an area where there is a good local authority that it will still be able to house its people at reasonable rents in the future, in spite of the difficulties, whereas in the case of a bad local authority it will not be possible.
That may be in keeping with the general policy of the Government, that they want to see bad local authorities. Indeed, it would appear to be the only answer. The Joint Under-Secretary should think about this carefully. As a result of allowing the bad local authorities to contract out of this obligation there will be a big increase in rents, which is bound to be followed by a demand for increased wages, and that is not the kind of stability this country needs. Therefore, the Secretary of State is making a contribution that will prevent a balanced economy in the future.
4.30 p.m.
Until the Joint Under-Secretary and the Secretary of State think in terms of how the Measure will apply to people who are still to be housed, they are missing the whole point of the debate. Houses are built for people and not for local authorities, and the Government have a responsibility to ensure—it will be within


their power if they accept the Amendment—that people have an opportunity to obtain a house at a fairly reasonable rent. If the example of the Dumfriesshire County Council is followed throughout Scotland, it will mean the end of the hopes of many young people of obtaining decent houses.
The Joint Under-Secretary has a tremendous responsibility. Judging by his previous statements, I should have thought that he would have given more consideration to the prospective tenants of houses than to local authorities. Local authorities should be free, but "freedom" is a dangerous word when used alone, for it may mean "freedom to exploit" as well as "freedom to help". Consequently, the Government have a responsibility to ensure that bad local authorities are at least forced to keep in line with good local authorities.

Mr. Willis: I was interested to hear the Joint Under-Secretary's closing remarks. He used a familiar phrase. He said, "This is a realistic policy". Whenever I hear a Tory talking about a "realistic" policy, I know that ordinary folk are to "get it in the neck". That is what always happens when a Government spokesman says "We must introduce an element of realism", so I am not surprised that the hon. Gentleman declines to accept the Amendment.
I was also struck by the rather naïve manner in which the hon. Gentleman said, "We are doing nothing. We are just leaving this to the local authorities." But the Government are doing something. They are giving the local authorities a lead. The fact that the Government are now saying "You need not pay anything" is an indication to the local authorities that they need not pay anything. The hon. Gentleman may not be in the inner councils of his party, but surely he knows that that is the message which his party intends to send to the local authorities—that they can stop paying the subsidy.
What does the hon. Gentleman think the so-called municipal ratepayers' associations and progressive associations throughout Scotland will say when they know about the Clause? They already say, "Why should we subsidise the people in municipal houses?" The

Government have not the courage to say, "We think they should be subsidised in the same way as the Government have subsidised them." By telling the local authorities that they need not pay anything at all, the Government are providing them with an argument to reduce the subsidies.
Several times during our debates on the Clause I have asked—I have never been able to get the information—what would happen to rents if a local authority decided to pay no subsidy. In introducing the Bill, the hon. Gentleman said that rents would be increased by £5 a year as the result of the Measure. He has just told us that the average rate contribution per house is £6 10s. at present, but we have been told in other quarters that it will, in practically every case, be far higher than that. At all events, this comes to a figure of £11 10s., which means an increase of about 4s. 6d. per week on the rent. If the local authority has been paying more than that, the increase will be more. Does the hon. Gentleman think that tenants will pay these amounts without unions submitting claims for increased wages? Is that what the Government want?
The Prime Minister made a great speech at the weekend, using the Edwardian language which is typical of him. He spoke about "masters and men" getting together, which is language redolent of the beginning of this century. Surely he does not expect them to get together on the basis of this increase suddenly being thrust upon tenants by the Government's action.
The Amendment deals with the narrower point of whether or not local authorities should be able to stop the rate contribution in respect of houses which have already been completed. Surely there is no case at all for doing that. The hon. Gentleman did not produce a real argument. For what it was worth, his argument was that the Government no longer relate the subsidy to the cost of the house. I never knew that the subsidy was particularly closely related to the cost of the house. It is true that we fought for the subsidy to be increased when the cost of the house went up, but we were not successful. The housing subsidy has depended to a great extent upon what Government has been in


power, and it has gone up and down accordingly ever since its introduction. Consequently, the hon. Gentleman's premise is not correct to begin with.
However, the Joint Under-Secretary says that, because the Government no longer relate the housing subsidy to the cost of the house, local authorities should not do so. The local authority subsidy has been related not to the cost of the house but to the Government's subsidy, and all we ask is that it should continue to do so in respect of those houses for which local authorities have already undertaken to pay a contribution. Surely it is logical that, if the Government intend to continue to pay the same subsidy in respect of those houses which have already been completed and the local authority subsidy is related to the Government subsidy, the local authority subsidy should also be continued. I should have thought that that was logical and reasonable and a course to be commended.
Apparently, however, it is nothing of the kind, and now we have a position in which nobody knows where he is. Even though they live in houses built before the Measure will come into operation, thousands of tenants in Scotland are worried about the possibility of rents increasing by 4s. or 5s. a week. Having regard to the example set by the Dumfries-shire County Council and the rents which are being charged by some other local authorities, these people have very good reason to worry.
I gave a number of examples from Dumfries-shire in Committee. The hon. Gentleman knows the conditions. He has received deputations about the matter. If this sort of thing happens all over Scotland—that might well be so—it will cause serious discontent, and that will have a bad effect upon industrial output. The Government have talked about doubling our standard of living in twenty-five years. At the present rate, under this Government we shall be halving our standard of living in twenty-five years.
I would urge the Joint Under-Secretary to look at the Amendment again. It is logical and does not stop the Government implementing this policy for new houses. However, we suggest that at least the Government should not ask

local authorities to stop the subsidies already being given. The Government will not solve the financial difficulties of local authorities in that way. The Government are supposed to be considering local authority finances. I have seen no great ideas yet produced by the Government for solving the difficulties.
Perhaps this is one of the ways by which the Government hope to be able to say to local authorities that they have made it possible for the authorities to solve their own financial problems. The Government need not expect many authorities in Scotland to accept that argument. Certainly, Labour local authorities will not. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman reconsiders this matter before the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Bence: I am always surprised when I hear a Minister saying of a Bill that he has provided a door to a sort of passageway and, when we complain that the door and the passageway are dangerous, saying that it does not matter because the Government are satisfied that no one will use them. It always seems rather stupid to open a door if one is satisfied that no one will use it. The best thing to do is to brick up the door, thus preventing draughts. If a door is not to be used, what is the point of having it?
I am satisfied that many local authorities will use this door. In fact, some are already doing so. My hon. Friends have referred to Dumfries, but I can quote the case of Milngavie. Milngavie is a good case, because next year the Labour Party will gain control of the council there and all the schemes pushed through the door will undoubtedly be stopped. Milngavie is a very small burgh, controlled by nine independent progressive Conservative Liberals. I think that that is the combination. They have said that about 1,500 tenants of local authority houses among 3,000 or 4,000 owner-occupiers and private tenants must among themselves, subsidise the cost of houses built from 1919–55.
As a result, two-room old folks' houses in Milngavie are now to be let at a maximum rent of 36s. a week. Even rents like that do not wipe out the housing account deficit. There is still a deficit of about £7,000, even though two-room houses will have an inclusive rent of 36s.


a week and five-apartment houses a rent of £2 9s. That is for houses built at a cost of £400 between 1919 and 1926. The rents will be £2 9s. a week, so that houses now being built can be let at the same figure. In other words, a small section of tenants in Milngavie are, through their rents, not through their rates, to subsidise houses built after the war.
So many people in Milngavie have seen the injustice of this that, much to the surprise of hon. Members opposite, many who are not tenants of council houses have voted against this vicious proposal. In Milngavie, are about 200 two-apartment houses. Last Saturday, there was brought to my notice the case of a lady who was living with her mother, both of them working. The tenancy was in the name of the person with the lowest income, but the missive was sent to the person with the higher income, in order that a higher rent could be charged. That is a shocking thing, because the missive was in the name of the person who was a sub-tenant or lodger. That is the sort of tactics to be used; that is the door which has been opened by that council.
I am surprised that any Government should permit a proposition that the general body of ratepayers in an area should be absolved from all responsibility from the general burden of housing people in the present expensive conditions, while all responsibility is thrown on to that section of the community which must be housed in local authority houses. That is my great complaint. The Government are forcing a small section of people to bear the whole burden of the high cost of housing in local authority areas.
4.45 p.m.
My hon. Friends referred to the subsidy being related to the cost of the house, but the subsidy has always been related to the cost of money. It is the cost of money which has determined subsidies to local authorities. When we have suggested that there should be specially low interest rates for housing the people, we have been told that discrimination could not be allowed. But there has always been discrimination in lending money. Bankers have always discriminated. If one is in a sufficiently strong position, with a sufficiently strong proposal, one can always

get better terms for an overdraft than if one is not so powerful. I see no reason why any Government of any country should not provide special interest rates in this important object of housing the people.
If something like that is not done, our present discussions now prove meaningless, because in a few years local authorities will stop building houses. The whole exercise since 1954 has been to slow down the housing of the people. Time and time again we have been told that the Rent Bill will release housing accommodation. Goodness only knows where it is to come from. This Bill will tend to decrease housing construction. People want to pay a reasonable rent so that they are left with enough to have decent standards of food and clothing. If the Amendment is not accepted, many people will be paying too high a rent for that. In the general inflationary situation, with the general fall in the value of money, we cannot expect a fall in the cost of house building.
I made it my business last Saturday to talk to some of the tradespeople in Milngavie, to butchers, grocers and greengrocers, and I went into two small cafés. I found that trade has dropped considerably. People in Milngavie are buying less meat. Some have had their rents increased from 23s. to 49s. Some have gone up higher than that, because they started from a smaller figure, but £2 9s. is the maximum. The tradespeople are already feeling the pinch, because people are spending less money.
The ultimate effect of what the Joint Under-Secretary is suggesting by giving the local authorities freedom not to make a statutory contribution to the housing fund is that, as we increase the amount of money which people have to find for housing accommodation—because they must have it—the less they will have to spend on goods and services of all sorts, and particularly on food.
People will cut down on other things, because they must have a roof over their heads, and we shall very soon be back to the situation which we had between the wars, when huge numbers of owneroccupiers—and I am sure that this is as true of Scotland as it is of England and Wales—were so burdened down by heavy financial commitments, owing to the necessity of having a roof over their heads


that, because they had to find that money they had to do without things which were needed in the home. Indeed, malnutrition and real physical poverty was very often more recognisable in those areas in which people were committed to higher financial commitments than in the areas where people paid lower rents.
My wife was in London here last week, and I was surprised to hear from her that one can buy fruit, meat, vegetables, cheese and butter much more cheaply in London than one can in Scotland. In fact, in Scotland, the average household buys more of the heavy foods than people do here, though that may partly be because rents are not so high there. I am quite satisfied from my own experience that if we drive rents up and keep on driving them up, as the Government are trying to do, we shall drive people to spend less on buying food and less on the precautions necessary for the preservation of their health and well-being. Those are very dangerous trends.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not open that door. For goodness sake, let him shut it now. Do not let us give the local authorities the right to contract out of making a statutory contribution. The local authorities which will do that will very often be a small group of authorities having a small number of municipal tenants in their areas, and, therefore, in a better position to spread the burden over the whole community. If an area consisted exclusively of municipal houses, with no privately owned houses or owner-occupier houses, the argument would not arise. but in the case of those authorities in whose area there is only a small group of council houses, such as Milngavie, which is in my own constituency and is the best example I know, it really would be unfair to throw the whole burden back upon a small group of council house tenants. If it is spread over the whole area, the cost per annum would be very small indeed, whereas if limited to a very small group it would be vicious. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman will look at the matter again and see whether he cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. Woodburn: We do not wish to exaggerate the importance of the form of the Amendment. What lies behind it is much more important than its actual

wording. We accept what the Joint Under-Secretary says that, for the great majority of local authorities in Scotland, this will make no difference whatsoever, that a local authority will accept its responsibilities and will deal with the rents of houses responsibly and with due regard to its population.
There is a serious problem in regard to a great number of the small authorities which the hon. Gentleman has mentioned. I fear that many of them will not build any houses at all. Therefore, there will be neither subsidies nor houses in the case of some of these local authorities which he has mentioned. The Joint Under-Secretary will have noticed from the speeches of some of my hon. Friends that the example of the Dumfries-shire County Council has come as a shock to all hon. Members. especially those on this side of the House.
Dumfriesshire has a special importance at this moment. I understand that it has one of the big reserves of coking coal which will become tremendously important in the future development of Scotland. If a local authority like the county council of Dumfries is to take the advice of the Government—and it is rather strong advice from the Government—then it is like saying to the local authority "We are not stopping you from supplying any milk for children, but we are not going to give you any more money for it."
It is like saying "We do not compel anyone to sleep under bridges, as used to be the case in the old days." Rich and poor alike, as Anatole France said, are equally free to sleep or not to sleep under bridges, but if all the money is taken out of a man's pocket and he is deprived of the means of paying for lodgings, there is a greater chance of him sleeping under bridges than if he were a free agent. if we take money from the local authorities it is a pressure on them either to economise at somebody else's expense or not to do its duty.
If, to take the case of Dumfries-shire, that kind of example is given to the whole country by the irresponsible way in which the county council has started to deal with rents, it will, if followed, make housing almost prohibitive from the point of view of a great number of tenants. Let us imagine that the coking coal to which I have referred is to be


developed in Dumfries-shire, and that the National Coal Board, the local authority, or the Secretary of State for Scotland wish to provide a new town, or what would approximate to a new town, in the area of a local authority. Will there be the slightest chance that any miners will leave Fife, the Lothians or Lanarkshire to go into Dumfries-shire, if this kind of rent policy is to be pursued, with the encouragement of the Government?
This attitude of the Government in passing on a hint, with a kick of the boot, at the same time, suggesting that rents ought to be raised, which has already resulted, as I think one of my hon. Friends has already said, in Dumfries-shire "jumping the gun", makes us feel that we ought to make some protest against it. Since we have been debarred from making it in the discussion on other parts of the Bill by the tightness of the way in which Amendments have been drawn, we propose to register our protest by going into the Division Lobby in favour of this Amendment.

Mr. J. C. George: I find great difficulty in following some of the reasoning of hon. Members opposite on, this Amendment. I think that the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy Burghs (Mr. Hubbard) asked what effect it would have upon the waiting lists, and what chance those on the waiting lists would have of getting houses if the Amendment were not accepted. This Amendment has nothing 10 do with houses to be built in the future: it applies only to houses built before the passing of this Bill.

Mr. Willis: Surely, the hon. Gentleman is making a mistake here? Inasmuch as the subsidies are to be pooled, and the rents based on the pooled subsidies, whatever happens to the subsidy, whether in respect of past or future subsidies, will have an effect on rents.

Mr. George: This Amendment has nothing to do with subsidies; it specially deals with houses built with assistance from the rates. It concerns the local authority contribution to the housing account, and the Amendment stops there. It makes it compulsory in regard to houses built in the past. Therefore, it has nothing to do with houses to be built in the future.
Let me try to put the point more clearly. This Amendment seeks to impose upon the local authority the continued payment of a contribution from the rates in respect of houses built before the passing of the Bill. Therefore, it leaves the authority free to pay or not to pay in respect of new houses.

Mr. Willis: The subsidies are pooled.

Mr. T. Fraser: Will the hon. Gentleman have a look at the next Amendment on the Notice Paper, from which he will see that, in respect of future houses, if our advice were taken, the authority would be required to make a contribution.

Mr. George: I am talking about the Amendment that we are now discussing. Obviously, the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) agrees with me, so that I need not pursue that point any further.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire. East (Mr. Bence) says that this Clause will he creating difficulties for the future. Again, the hon. Gentleman has not read his own Amendment for, under it, he is quite agreeable that the local authority should be free not to pay a minimum contribution on houses built in the future.

Mr. Bence: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

5.0 p.m.

Mr. George: No, I will not.
I want hon. Members to consider the contribution made to the debate by the hon. Member for Maryhill (Mr. Hannan). He said that if the Amendment were not accepted, the position in Glasgow would be lamentable. What does the Bill do? It gives the local authority freedom to pay what it likes into the housing account. The local authority has that freedom now. In the future there can be no minimum, but at the moment there is. Let us see what local authorities are doing now with the housing account, and whether there are any grounds for the fears expressed. Let us look at what happens when they have the freedom to pay what they like. as at the moment, and, at the same time, are compelled by Statute to pay a certain figure which amounts to one part in four.
At the moment when the law says that the local authorities shall pay one part in four, what, in fact, are they paying? One


has only to look at the rating review to see what the cities are doing. The grant is 28 per cent. of the total housing expenditure. The local authorities could pay about 9 per cent., whereas, in fact, they are paying 29 per cent. At this moment, when they have the freedom to do what they like, they are paying 29 per cent. as against the statutory 9 per cent. In the large burghs 29 per cent. of the expenditure comes from grant and, therefore, 8 per cent. should be paid by the local authorities. But they are paying 31 per cent., which is nearly 4 times what they are supposed to pay by Statute. In the small burghs, such as Milngavie, which was mentioned by hon. Members opposite, they get 32 per cent. of their expenditure by way of grant and they should pay only 11 per cent. In fact, they are paying 23 per cent. That is what is happening now.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman is giving a lot of history and facts about the past.

Mr. J. N. Browne: It is the truth.

Mr. Woodburn: The facts are usually the truth.
The point of our protest is that if the Government encourage local authorities to raise rents and if that is done in what appears to be an irresponsible fashion, it will have very severe consequences on the transfer of population and the rearrangement of industry in Scotland.

Mr. George: The trouble is that hon. Gentlemen opposite are trying to put forward the wrong arguments on the Amendment. Those arguments should be against cutting subsidies and not trying to argue against local authority contributions. If, as I have stated, the local authorities are all paying more by way of contribution than they are called upon to pay, what is going to happen overnight to create the fear that in Scotland house building will stop and that rents will rise to an enormous figure? Dumfries, which has been discussed so much, is now paying 23·5 per cent. from rates into the housing account whereas it should only be paying 10 per cent. if it stuck strictly to the Statute.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman says that the local authorities are doing so much just now. He is quoting from a

document. Could he tell us the date of that document and whether it bears any relevance to the figures quoted by hon. Members on this side of the House?

Mr. George: I am quoting from the rating review, 1956. This is the most recent information, as the hon. Gentleman well knows, and I deduce from it that the fears expressed by hon. Members opposite are "phoney". There is no reason whatsoever to anticipate that the local authorities will in the future do other than carry out their duty in a proper manner, and, from all the evidence that we have had throughout the years, if they are going to err at all, they will err on the side of being generous to the council house tenant.

Miss Margaret Herbison: I had no intention of speaking in this debate, but the speech to which we have just listened from the hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has brought me to my feet. When we find an hon. Member producing what my right hon. Friend called a history book in support of his contentions, it shows how badly off are the Tories on the back benches for any arguments in support of their Bill. We have, and I think very rightly, told the House, in the debate on this Amendment what is happening to council house tenants in Dumfriesshire. We have spoken of the great difficulties being placed on every family that is living in a council house there.
In reply, the hon. Member for Pollok brought forward the rating review. 1956. The figure which he quoted would not be the rating contribution in 1956. I, would possibly be the rate contribution for 1955. What we are talking about in connection with the Amendment is what is the rate contribution paid by Dumfriesshire at the present moment. No one has been able to tell us that. It seems to me that what the Tory-controlled local authority of Dumfries-shire has done might well be copied by many other Tory-controlled local authorities in Scotland.
It is because we are so afraid of that, and because we were unable, in Committee, to get the Minister to accept our Amendments on the matter, which would have ensured the continuance of a rate contribution not only for houses already built, but for houses to be built in the future, that we put down this Amendment today. The hon. Member for


Pollok says what will have to be put on the rents, and yet his hon. Friend, in telling us about the subsidies which are coming from the Government, tells us that they will not be attached to individual houses. In other words, he is saying that the Government are going to give the local authorities almost a block grant by way of subsidies and that the local authorities will divide that block grant over the rents of all their houses, those already built and those yet to be built.
Is that not exactly what one would expect? The Tory-controlled local authorities, under the Bill as it stands at present, will be able to decide to pay no rate contributions at all and that will mean that the pool will be a smaller pool and, consequentially, that the rent will have to rise. The hon. Member for Pollok should really examine more carefully the arguments put forward from this side of the House, and when he goes to the Library or to his locker to find ammunition with which to back up his case he should see that he gets up-to-date information.

Mr. George: Could the hon. Lady tell me where I could get more up-to-date information, and, when she talks about what Tory-controlled local authorities will do in the future, could she say what they are doing now?

Miss Herbison: In the first instance, if the hon. Gentleman does not know where to find the right information he should be most careful not to quote the kind of information that he quoted in his speech. He should not try to back up his case with it. If he wanted information with which to back up his case, he should have got in touch with Dumfriesshire, or with any local authority, which would have been able to give him the facts. Then there are the so-called temporary houses; houses supposed to stand for ten years and then be demolished, and for which £130 a year has to be paid. That is what the Tory-controlled Dumfriesshire local authority has done, and that is what we are so afraid will happen in the case of other Tory-controlled authorities.

Mr. George Lawson: The hon. Member for Pollok (Mr. George) has been very well answered. It is quite clear from what he says that he thinks that the rate contribution which is at

present paid on existing houses is far too high. He wants to see it very substantially reduced, if not wiped out.

Mr. George: The hon. Member must not distort what I said. I quoted what was being done. I showed what local authorities were paying now by way of rate contribution, and drew the lesson that local authorities would look after council tenants in future. I did not use the figures to pass any opinion as to what they should do.

Mr. Lawson: I think that the hon. Member is wrong about the lesson. If he is not speaking for himself he is speaking for his party when he talks about the rate contributions being far too high. Clearly, if they are to be reduced there must be a corresponding increase in rents.
Our point is a perfectly reasonable one, and I want to present it in a rather different way—by putting it in the form of a question. Will the Joint Under-Secretary give notice to local authorities that the Government no longer regard the provision of houses as an essential local government service? Is that the effect of this provision? Are they saying to local authorities, "This need no longer be an activity of yours"? I can read nothing else into the attitude which shows itself in the Clause and particularly in the rejection of the Amendment.
To talk of local authorities being left with the right to say "yea" or "nay" upon important matters of this kind is to deny all experience of the past. Local authorities used not to build houses; they never undertook to meet this problem of providing adequate houses until they were obliged to do so. It was never an undertaking on their part; in 1919 it was made a statutory obligation. The very existence of a statutory obligation indicates that whatever Government have been in power have continued to say, "The duty of providing these essential housing needs is a duty that we are imposing upon local authorities." By adopting the so-called permissive policy the Government are taking the opposite stand and saying, "This is no longer a duty that we expect you to carry through."
There can be no other explanation. I put it to hon. Members opposite that in all the important services undertaken by local authorities there has had to be some kind of obligation. Local authority work


has not grown up just from the love of the thing; its activity has grown up over the years because essential social needs were not being met. They had to be met in some way, and this involved the intervention of the central Government.
Does anybody think that we should have had a universal compulsory educational system, or any educational system at all, were it not for the fact that this had been an obligation placed upon local authorities by the State? Does anybody think that we would have any health services if it had not been for the fact that obligations have been placed upon local authorities? Should we have had a police force? In the past the police force was organised to protect property. That is not so today, but it used to be so. Does anybody believe that the mass of the people would want to contribute towards the protection of property? This, too, was an obligation placed upon local authorities, because the central Government realised that these matters had to be attended to.
5.15 p.m.
That is also the case with housing. Our people have lived under conditions of dreadful squalor. We need not go into detail, but Scotland's record is as bad as anybody's when it was left to chance or speculation to provide houses. The houses that were built then were scarcely fit for rats. Then the central Government said. "Here is a job that has to be done. In this day and age we can no longer permit people to live in these conditions, but they will go on living in those conditions unless local authorities take steps to see that the situation is improved." The 1919 Act imposed obligations. The State said, "We will accept part of the burden, and place the rest of the burden upon you." I do not think that the hon. Member for Pollok will challenge me when I say that if the problem had not been approached in that way we should not have got out of the mess that we were in.
As for all this talk of people benefiting from subsidies—let us recognise that we are all part of society, and that it is very difficult to value the contribution that any one person makes—the man who earns thousands of pounds a year or the fellow with a few pounds a week. We must

accept the responsibility for seeing that the necessary jobs are done upon the basis of collective responsibility. Hon. Members on this side of the House stand for the extension of the area of collective responsibility, and that is precisely what the Government are trying to oppose and break down. They are trying to narrow the area of collective responsibility or even to get rid of it, on the plea that there is plenty of room at the top, with their talk of enterprise, opportunity and all that nonsense.
The Joint Under-Secretary smiles. I ask him again whether he denies that what we are doing here is to give local authorities notice that in future they need no longer regard housing as an essential local authority service? What is the future? We have heard the Joint Under-Secretary himself say that, as the Government see it, in the near future there will be no housing subsidies at all and no rates for housing. Do we think that when the Government get to the stage of providing no subsidies for general housing need—as they have in England and Wales—local authorities will continue making a rate contribution? Surely if we wipe out subsidies we must also realise that we shall wipe out rate contributions.
The only possibility of reasonable houses being built under this conditions will be through trade unions insisting upon workers getting a very much larger share of the nation's wealth than they arc at present receiving. At present, persons receiving a wage of £6 or £7 a week cannot get suitable houses upon any kind of economic basis—and by houses I mean those that approximate to the standards which we have now come to demand, with baths, inside water supplies and inside lavatories. We want a standard which will enable us to avoid living and having our beings in one room—a one-room kitchen. Those standards cannot now be provided on the basis of the lowest wage being paid.
The only possibility of working people receiving the housing standard that they should receive will be upon the basis of their proportion of the nation's wealth being made very much larger, or the central Government contribution and the rate contribution continuing. Again, I ask the Joint Under-Secretary whether what I have said is true; that by taking


this line, the Government have given notice that henceforward the provision of houses is not to be regarded by local authorities—or by the central Government for that matter—as an essential need.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The hon. Member for Motherwell (Mr. Lawson) asked me whether the Government no longer regard housing as an essential service. In this Bill, the Government have shown special consideration for the special needs of Scotland and I think that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge that. Of course, housing is an essential Government service. We are concerned with the extent of the contribution towards local authority housing to be made by the people—perhaps by the hon. Member for Motherwell, I do not know—as United Kingdom taxpayers, as ratepayers and as tenants of these local authority houses. We are concerned with the extent of the division between these three aspects of ourselves as payers of taxes.

Mr. Lawson: As a person buying his home on the "never-never" system, I am quite prepared to make my contribution to the needs of my fellow beings.

Mr. Browne: That is quite in keeping with the views of the hon. Member.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) was worried, as were other hon. Members, about the possibility of local authority rents in Scotland being raised. I take no exception to the fact that he sought to pin this possibility on the cancellation of the statutory rate contribution. I think the right hon. Gentleman realises that this raising of rents in Scotland will happen in any case, and not because of this Clause or even of this Bill. Were there no Bill at all, the average of rents in Scotland would have to be about doubled if on average local authorities were to square their housing accounts.

Mr. T. Fraser: What is meant by "squaring a housing account"?

Mr. Browne: To make it balance with the classical statutory rate contribution. That is what is meant by the squaring of a housing account.
Hon. Members will not forget that Scottish rentals are about half the amount of English rentals for an equivalent house.

Even taking the burden of rates and rents together we in Scotland still pay substantially less than our English counterparts. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) took exception to the word, "realistic". I should have realised that he would. There was another speech where he took exception to it—

Mr. Willis: There were a good many other speeches.

Mr. Browne: This Government faces facts—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and I am beginning to believe that the hon. Member, for whom I have such a high regard, is just another Socialist living in "Cloud-cuckoo-land." However, the hon. Gentleman asked me a question which I think I should answer—

Mr. Willis: And do not let us have a "Cloud-cuckoo-land" answer.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman said we intend that local authorities should make no contribution equivalent to the statutory rate contribution. The facts of local authority finance on which this part of the Bill is based arc that if local authorities pool their subsidies and gradually adjust their rents, if necessary with a rent rebate scheme, and if they work towards the time when they pay no more into their housing accounts than one-third of the Exchequer subsidies—which is the equivalent of the statutory rate contribution—they can balance their housing accounts and go on building, and they can effect reductions—in some cases, substantial reductions—in the rate poundage.
This is a matter solely for the local authorities and that is the basis of the calculation upon which this Bill stands. Many local authorities remember what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite tend to forget, that if the rents go up the rates will go down. It is for local authorities to decide the division of the burden to be carried between rentpayer and ratepayer.

Mr. T. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has described housing as an essential local service. Will he say whether there is any other essential local service in respect of which the local authority is not obliged to make a contribution from the rates? The answer is, "No."

Mr. Browne: The hon. Gentleman has answered his own question.

Dr. J. Dickson Mabon: A realistic and genuine point which was made during the Committee stage discussions has so far remained unanswered. There is an inconsistency between Clause 5 and Clause 9. In Clause 5, we abolish the statutory right and, so to speak, say that the slogan is, "We trust the local authorities." Yet, in Clause 9, we proceed to lay down a minimum contribution by the exporting authority; in other words, we do not trust the local authorities. Why do we have this inconsistency? So far we have not received an answer to that. Can the Minister tell us the answer?

Division No. 131.]
AYES
[5.27 p.m.


Alnsley, J. W.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Moody, A. S.


Albu, A. H.
Grey, C. F.
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert(Lewis'm, S.)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moss, R.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Moyle, A.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Awbery, S. S.
Hamilton, W. W.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Hannan, W.
Oliver, G. H.


Balfour, A.
Hastings, S.
Oram, A. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Healey, Dents
Orbach, M.


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S.E.)
Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
Oswald, T.


Benson, G.
Herbison, Miss M.
Paling Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Beswick, Frank
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Holmes, Horace
Pargiter, G. A.


Blackburn, F.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Parker, J.


Blenkinsop, A.
Hoy, J. H.
Paton, John


Blyton, W. R.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pearson, A.


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pentland, N.


Bowles, F. G.
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Popplewell, E.


Brockway, A. F.
Hunter, A. E.
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Probert, A. R.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Pryde, D. J.


Burke, W. A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Randall, H. E.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Redhead, E. C.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jeger, George (Goole)
Reeves, J.


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St.Pnos,S.)
Reid, William


Callaghan, L. J.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rhodes, H.


Carmichael, J.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech(Wakefleld)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Champion, A. J.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pan was, N.)


Chetwynd, G. R.
Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Ross, William


Clunie, J.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Royle, C.


Coldrick, W.
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Collick, p. H. (Birkenhead)
Kenyon, C.
Short, E. W.


Collins, V. j. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
King, Dr. H. M.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Lawson, G. M.
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Skeffington, A. M.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Davies. Rt. Hon. Clement (Montgomery)
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)
Lindgren, G. S.
Snow, J. W.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Marcus
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Deer G.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Sparks, J. A.


Donnelly, D. L.
MacColl, J. E.
Steele, T.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
McGhee, H. G.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McGovern, J.
Stonehouse, John


Edelman, M.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Stones, W. (Consett)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
Mahon, Simon
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Swingler, S. T.


Fienburgh, W.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Sylvester, G. O.


Finch, H. J.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Forman, J. C.
Mason, Roy
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mellish, R. J.
Tomney, F.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Messer, Sir F.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
Mikardo, Ian
Viant, S. P.


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Warbey, W. N.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Monslow, W.
Watkins, T. E.

Mr. Browne: The hon. Member is quite wrong. It is not an inconsistency. The parallel is rather with the Government continuing to carry out their obligation in paying an Exchequer subsidy. Because the receiving authority wants to know how much it is getting, it must have a fixed payment from the exporting authority. It is no parallel with an authority building for itself.

Question put,That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 228.

Weitzman, D.
Wilkins, W. A.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Willey, Frederick
Woof, R. E.


Well., William (Walsall, N.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


West, D. G.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Wheeldon, W. E.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)
Zilliacus, K.


White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)



Wigg, George
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Rogers.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Maddan, Martin


Aitken, W. T.
Goodhart, Philip
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Alport, C. J. M.
Gower, H. R.
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tlverton)
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Marshall, Douglas


Arbutnnot, John
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mat hew, R.


Armstrong, C. W.
Green, A
Maude, Angus


Ashton, H.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Atkins, H. E.
Grimond, J.
Mawby, R. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Balniel, Lord
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Barber, Anthony
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Moore, Sir Thomas


Barlow, Sir John
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Barter, John
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nicholls, Harmar


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hay, John
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bevins, j. R. (Toxteth)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Oakshott, H. D.


Bidgood, J. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hioks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Page, R. G.


Black, C. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Body, R. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Partridge, E.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Hope, Lord John
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Hornby, R. P.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Braine, B. R.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pott, H. P.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Powell, J. Enoch


Bryan, P.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Burden, F. F. A.
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hyde, Montgomery
Profumo, J. D.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R.A.(Saffron Walden)
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Raikes, Sir Victor


Campbell, Sir David
Iremonger, T. L.
Rawlinson, Peter


Cary, Sir Robert
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Redmayne, M.


Channon, Sir Henry
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Remnant, Hon. P.


Cole, Norman
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Cooke, Robert C.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Robertson, Sir David


Cooper, A. E.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J K.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Roper, Sir Harold


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Keegan, D.
Russell, R. S.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Crowder, Sir John (Flnchley)
Kerr, H. W.
Sharples, R. C.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Kershaw, J. A.
Shepherd, William


Cunningham, Knox
Kimball, M.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Kirk, P. M.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Dance, J. C. G.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Davidson, Viscountess
Lambton, Viscount
Speir, R. M.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. Mc A.
Leburn, W. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Doughty, C. J. A.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Drayson, G. B.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Stoddart-Scott, col. M.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Storey, S.


Duthie, W. S.
Longden, Gilbert
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Low, Rt. Hon. A. R. W.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Elliott, R.W.(N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswiok)
Teeling, W.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, S. J,
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R.(Croydon, S.)


Finlay, Graeme
McKibbin, A. J.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Fisher, Nigel
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Foster, John
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Freeth, Denzil
Maclean, Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Vane, W. M. F.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Vickers, Miss Joan


Godber, J. B.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.







Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)



Wall, Major Patrick
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Woollam, John Victor
Mr. Wills and Mr. Brooman-White.

Clause 8.—(EXPORTING AND RECEIVING AUTHORITIES.)

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out lines 31 and 32.
After that notable moral victory, even if it was not an actual victory, I move this Amendment, which refers to the words
by the Scottish Special Housing Association acting with the approval of the Secretary of State,
During the Committee stage of the Bill several points were raised about the inclusion of the Scottish Special Housing Association in this context. None of them was answered satisfactorily by the Joint Under-Secretary. In spite of the fact that he claims to have answered thousands of questions very satisfactorily, he will find, if he looks at cols. 789 and 790 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the Scottish Standing Committee of 7th May, that he failed to do so on that occasion.
The matter was raised first by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), then by myself, and also, of course, by my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). We all raised points about this and did not get an answer. The subsection with which the Amendment is concerned defines the exporting authority as one which proposes
to make or have made arrangements for the meeting of that need,"—
for overspill—
in whole or in part, by the provision of housing accommodation outside their district—

(a) by another local authority, or a development corporation, in pursuance of an overspill agreement, or
(b) by the Scottish Special Housing Association acting with the approval of the Secretary of State, or
(c) by themselves in exercise of powers conferred by the principal Act."

Exactly how does the Scottish Special Housing Association come into this? It seems that the Association would be employed at the request either of the receiving authority or the exporting authority seeking to fulfil its job under Clause 8 (1, a) or (1, c). If the Association comes in under those paragraphs, why do we need to have (1, b)? In replying to that

question the hon. Gentleman made a rather significant statement. He said:
The Association is put in directly by the Secretary of State to do part of the overspill job. …"—[OFFICAL, REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 7th May. 1957; c. 789.]
Surely the Secretary of State can do that only if he is requested to do so? He has to be requested either by the exporting authority, which would then bring in the Association within Clause 8 (1, c), or by the receiving authority, which would bring it in under (1, a).
Surely there is no independent manner in which the Scottish Special Housing Association can come in and do the job? The hon. Gentleman was rather contradictory about that. In the extract which I have read he appeared to suggest that the Association could be put in without anyone asking for it. I am sure that that is not what we want.
He later suggested that the Association could be used to help to solve the overspill problem, which is a better interpretation than that which he had given earlier. If that is the interpretation—and the hon. Gentleman nods his head in agreement—why has it to be included in the Clause? Surely it is covered by Clause 8 (1, a) or 8 (1, c). If not, that raises a number of questions such as those asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton about the exact status of the Association, those which I raised about disputes, and those which my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock raised. If the provision which the Amendment seeks to delete is left in the Bill in this fashion it seems to be rather involved. I believe that the Government's purpose could have been quite well served by omitting it from this subsection.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.
The Joint Under-Secretary must yield some information on this Amendment. When we discussed Clause 23 in Committee—I concede that it was some time in the middle of the night nearly a fortnight ago—he told us that the capacity of the Scottish Special Housing Association to build houses was about 3,500 houses a year. We discovered that the Association


had in fact been building, four years ago, rather more than 5,000 a year and that it had gradually been running down from a little over 5,000 to 3,500. The Joint Under-Secretary described as the capacity of the Association the smallest number of houses which the Association had built in one year for several years.
The hon. Member has told us that the Association is to be employed for the purpose of dealing with Glasgow's overspill. We assume that that is the purpose of putting the Association into the Clause. Nevertheless, we fail to see how the Association will make any marked contribution to a solution of Glasgow's overspill problem unless it greatly increases the total number of houses that it builds; unless, of course, the Government have in mind that the Association will cease doing its present job of building houses for transferred miners and others in a similar category.
The Association is put into the Clause dealing with overspill populations from Glasgow, but Clause 23 says that the Association will only be authorised to build houses provided that the Secretary of State is satisfied that the local authority could not build the houses without charging an unreasonably high rent. The Secretary of State obviously does not think that a rent of £2 15s. a week for temporary prefabricated houses is unreasonably high. Everybody else in Scotland thinks that it is unreasonably high, but he does not.
5.45 p.m.
In those circumstances, the Association could be used to build houses to take Glasgow's overspill population only if the receiving authority were already charging rents in excess of those being charged by the Dumfries County Council. That is logical. The Secretary of State has accepted as reasonable the Dumfries rents of £2 15s. a week for any house, irrespective of size and location. He has provided in the Bill that he will not employ the Association unless the local authority would otherwise require to charge an unreasonably high rent. To obtain the services of the Association, therefore, a local authority would need to charge rents in excess of £2 15s. a week. We do not know how much in excess, but the figure would certainly need to be higher than

that of the rents charged by the Dumfries County Council.
We think it monstrous to include in a Clause dealing with Glasgow's overspill a provision that the Association will come to the aid of the receiving authority—it might be Kilmarnock Town Council or Hamilton Town Council—in providing houses to take Glasgow's overspill only if Kilmarnock or Hamilton Town Council charges a rent in excess of £2 15s. a week for its own people in respect of existing houses. Of course we shall not do that.
I think that in all the circumstances there is no point in keeping the Association within the Clause at all. By all means keep it in if the Government will amend Clause 23, but if they will not amend Clause 23 and give themselves power to send in the Association without the Secretary of State interesting himself so much in the level of rents, there is no point in retaining the Association in this Clause.
For several weeks the Secretary of State has been telling hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Emrys Hughes), that he has nothing to do with local authority rents. We are questioning the desirability of including the power to use the Scottish Special Housing Association, because by keeping this provision in the Bill we are asking the Secretary of State to determine whether the rents in a local authority area, where the authority is likely to use the Association, are unreasonably high. We have no confidence whatever in the Secretary of State's appreciation of what is an unreasonably high rent.
In the circumstances, I hope that the Government will see how illogical the position is, and agree to accept the Amendment.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The position is that if the Scottish Special Housing Association were to be brought in under Clause 8 (1, a) or 8 (1, c) it could be only as an agent of the importing authority or the receiving authority. It would therefore be wholly or partly at the expense of one or other of the authorities. By including it under paragraph (b) the Association could be put in by my right hon. Friend. Of course, it would be by administrative arrangement with both the exporting and


receiving authority that the houses would be provided. The Association could be put in by my right hon. Friend and could act on its own account and without payment from either the exporting or receiving authority.
The reason why this reference must be made is that Clause 23 (1, b) authorises the type of building for which my right hon. Friend may make payments to the Scottish Special Housing Association. I assure the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that the two provisions do not hang together and that there is no rent qualifications, such as that which he mentioned, which is referred to in Clause 23 (1, a). It is simply that my right hon. Friend
may, with the consent of the Treasury, make to the Scottish Special Housing Association payments in respect of such number of houses provided by the Association as he may determine, being—
(b) houses provided in pursuance of arrangements such as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section eight of this Act.
I am sure the House does not want to omit that important reference, which authorises payments by my right hon. Friend to the Association without any contra payment being made for that service by the exporting or the receiving authority. The Amendment seeks to omit that reference.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) previously asked me a question, which he did not raise today, about what would happen in the event of dispute. There is no statutory provision for disputes. It is simply a matter for administrative action.
The hon. Member for Hamilton raised a point which we discussed fairly fully in Committee, which was whether this meant an increase in the total number of houses and if so what was going to happen? I would ask the hon. Gentleman not to press me too far about the future. In theory, the existing duties of the Scottish Special Housing Association will go down gradually while the requirements of overspill building will increase. I should not like to commit myself exactly about what will happen in the years to come.

Mr. Ross: We are not very much advanced in clarity by the statement of the Joint Under-Secretary of State. The Clause defines exporting and importing

authorities. The exporting authority is defined as an authority that cannot meet its housing-accommodation need wholly or partly and has to make arrangements with another local authority.
No one can build in an area covered by a local authority without the permission of that local authority. The Secretary of State has no right to say that anyone can build within the area of another local authority without the permission of that authority. What is actually happening is that we are defining an exporting authority as one that meets its overspill needs by the use of the Scottish Special Housing Association. How does it? It is not the exporting authority that comes to an agreement with the Scottish Special Housing Association, but, obviously, the importing authority, the local authority in the area of which the houses are to be built.
I must ask again what we asked in Committee and did not get any clear indication on at all: how is this thing to be worked out? We understand that this may well be done in an overspill agreement, but the overspill agreement does not cover the Scottish Special Housing Association, which is not in it at all. The Joint Under-Secretary says that it is not in it, at least he tried to say it about three times. Eventually, he said he might have misled the Committee and might have to apologise next morning. He appeared next morning and did not apologise, but he certainly misled the Committee.
There has to be an agreement between Glasgow and another local authority. The people who are bound by that agreement are the other local authority. We are now told that the local authority can transfer its responsibility in respect of building the actual houses, with the consent of the Secretary of State, to the Scottish Special Housing Association. If it does that, it is a considerable advance for Glasgow, which will be relieved from the obligation to pay £14 a year for at least ten years. Glasgow will have no say whether or not the Scottish Special Housing Association builds any of the houses. The receiving authority is held responsible for the carrying out of the agreement in respect of houses.
It is not good enough for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to say, "There is nothing statutorily laid down about


what will happen in case of dispute". There are obviously three sides to the agreement. There are the two local authorities originally concerned and now the Scottish Special Housing Association is drawn in, to be practically responsible for the building, for the rent and for the occupancy of the houses. It is not good enough to say, "Everything is all right. Please let us have the Clause." How is this arrangement to work?
The Scottish Special Housing Association is responsible for the rents, the tenants and the maintenance of the houses. We believe that that should be covered by an agreement, bin it is not covered by an agreement. Any shortcomings on the part of the Scottish Special Housing Association will be visited on the head of the receiving authority who made the agreement originally with Glasgow. The position is far from satisfactory.
Let not the Joint Under-Secretary of State imagine that we do not want the Scottish Special Housing Association to participate in this work; we do. We would be far better satisfied if there were an imaginative part of the Clause which showed that the Government intend to enlarge the work and the whole scope and idea of the Scottish Special Housing Association. The burdens will be placed upon the local authorities, who will not be able to do anything at all. An agency such as the Scottish Special Housing Association is required, but I do not think that it is satisfactorily dealt with by putting it in here in connection with the definition of an exporting authority.
I say quite seriously that we are as anxious as the Government are to ensure the success of these matters, but that they bristle with difficulty. The position has not been made clear by the Joint Under-Secretary's statement that the Government have not covered the possibility of dispute. Disputes will inevitably arise. We are told that the possibility is covered by an overspill agreement, but that is one of the vague things we have to battle with. The Clause does not cover the overspill agreement and we do not know how it is covered.
At one time I tried to argue that Clause 23 should be covered by an overspill agreement and then referred to the definition Clause, by which we might hope to get the matter cleared up. At long

last, we are told, "We do not know what is to happen. We have made no arrangements at all in relation to disputes." That was the Government speaking. The Government are taking power to usurp the authority of a local authority and to do its work. At all stages they hold up the Scottish Special Housing Association as something which will play a very important part. If that is so, and if it is so necessary to cover local authorities that default, it is equally necessary to cover disputes that will arise in respect of the Scottish Special Housing Association.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State is being less than fair to his own Bill and to the practicability of his own Bill if he does not fairly and squarely meet the position. I sincerely hope that in the time that remains to us for consideration of the Bill and its administrative difficulties the hon. Gentleman will look into these matters. I cannot be satisfied with the explanation that has been given. I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who was such a help to us occasionally in the Committee, will have addressed his mind to the very important legal aspects of bringing the Scottish Special Housing Association into the Clause.
It would have been far better to leave the Clause as it was, so that the local authority could invite the Scottish Special Housing Association in to build in its area. Then it would be a matter between one authority and another, and not all mixed up. It would have been better than an overspill agreement to have made an arrangement of that kind. The Clause is now vague and loose, and with its tripartite form of working disputes will inevitaby arise and will lead to delays, even if work ever gets started.
We now have the Lord Advocate with us. He was really helpful in Committee and quick to seize our points. When we discussed things from half past ten on one day till nearly half past twelve on the next day the Lord Advocate was so seized of one of our Amendments that after about twenty-four hours he met one of our points by putting down a Government Amendment. That is the kind of attention we like, respecting the Opposition and realising the importance of the work we are doing.
I am sorry that he has only just come in. If he had been here at the start he would have realised the importance of


this Amendment, its legal aspects and the complexities that will arise to frustrate the hopes of the Government in regard to overspill and the Scottish Special Housing Association. I hope that either he or the Solicitor-General for Scotland will indicate that the Government are prepared to think about this matter again.

6.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I appreciate that this is a point of importance, but the position is this. There may be an overspill agreement between the receiving and the exporting authorities, or there may be not an overspill agreement but an agreement under which the Scottish Special Housing Association builds the houses. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, that must be a tripartite agreement because both the exporting and the receiving authorities must agree and the Scottish Special Housing Association must come in with the approval of the Secretary of State.
As the hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out, the advantage there from the exporting authority's point of view is that it is the Secretary of State who in effect meets the additional cost, and the exporting authority has not got to make its contribution of £14 or whatever it may be. The Scottish Special Housing Association comes in as a sort of standby. It does not take part in an overspill agreement. That is made clear in the following Clause, and there is no reason why it should take part in such an agreement. There is no reason why a reasonable agreement cannot be arranged between the two authorities and the Scottish Special Housing Association, and if they come to an arrangement—I think that is the word used in Clause 23—there is again no reason why in the case of a dispute they should not arrange for the dispute to be arbitrated upon as happens with a normal commercial contract.

Mr. Ross: Surely the hon. and learned Gentleman appreciates that on the wording of the Clause the arrangements which are mentioned there are arrangements initiated in the first place by the exporting authority. The Scottish Special Housing Association can only come into it not in relation to the exporting authority but in relation to the receiving authority.

The Solicitor General for Scotland: I cannot go the whole way with the hon. Member on that. It is a tripartite arrangement. The exporting authority can go to the Scottish Special Housing Association and say, "We are proposing, if we can arrange with a particular receiving authority, to overspill part of our population into that area." The Scottish Special Housing Association is prepared to build houses in that area with the approval of the Secretary of State; the receiving authority is prepared to allow houses to be built there, and then they come to not an overspill agreement, but an arrangement, and they can agree on the terms on which these houses should be built. The main term, however, is that an exporting authority is saved its contribution. It is only by keeping the words which are proposed to be deleted that the contribution can be made by the Secretary of State to the Association under a later Clause.

Mr. Lawson: The houses will continue to belong to the Scottish Special Housing Association. The rents will be determined by the Association. The Association will be expected also to pool the rents for its entire ownership of houses. At least, that is how I understand it. If that is not the case, I should be glad to be corrected. My understanding is that the Scottish Special Housing Association would have its income assessed as a whole and it would be judged on the basis of a deficit on its entire income. If the Scottish Special Housing Association were undertaking the building of expensive houses for an authority, would the Association spread the increased rent over its existing houses? If so, it would seem strange to me.
I can understand the local authority being expected to spread the increased rent over all of its tenants, but I should hardly expect this to be the case with the Scottish Special Housing Association. Would each of the schemes undertaken by the Association be treated separately and would the rents be based on the cost of these houses and not on the income from the existing houses?

Mr. J. N. Browne: The question of rents is not really relevant to this Clause. As I said in Committee, the rent policy of the Scottish Special Housing Association is under active consideration, and I


am not able to tell the hon. Gentleman what the final decision will be.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 9.—(OVERSPILL AGREEMENTS.),

Amendment made: In page 7, line 11, leave out "which is" and insert "who are".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 8, line 5, after "therewith," to insert:
and specified in the agreement.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. May I draw your attention to the Amendment in page 7, line 26, after "year", to insert:
unless the authorities concerned agree otherwise.
Do I understand that that is not being called?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Gordon Touche): That Amendment is out of order.

Mr. Ross: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Could you give us any guidance? This is a point which the Government said they were prepared to reconsider. Could you tell us how we can raise this matter with the Government in view of the promise which was given in Committee?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: It should have been put down for Recommittal if the hon. Member wished to raise it.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Further to that point of order. How can we secure redress, Mr. Deputy-Speaker? May I call your attention to column 819 of the Report of the Fifteenth Sitting of the Standing Committee in which a specific undertaking is given by the Minister?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If the hon. Member did not put down the Amendment for Recommittal it is entirely his responsibility.

Mr. Lawson: Further to that point of order, is it not the case that if hon. Members were not strictly accurate in tabling the Amendment there should have been some measure of guidance?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: If an hon. Member asks for advice he will always receive it.

Mr. Fraser: If I may proceed to move my Amendment in page 8, line 5, it raises a matter upon which the Government, so

far as I can remember, did not make any specific promise of reconsideration but upon which the Government were not able to speak with one voice.
The Clause deals with overspill agreements, and subsection (5) which I seek to amend provides:
An overspill agreement may provide for the making by the exporting authority to the receiving authority of such additional payments …
and so on. It provides for the exporting authority to make additional payments to a receiving authority in respect of provisions for industrial development or other services which might be provided by the receiving authority—services considered to be essential to the proper settlement of the population that is being exported from Glasgow.
During the Committee stage, the Joint Under-Secretary was adamant in asserting that overspill agreements would only deal with housing. Then we wondered how on earth there could he provision for an additional payment to be made by the exporting authority to cover matters besides housing unless there were some reference in the agreement to the purpose for which the payment was being made. After about 12 hours' debate on Tuesday, 21st May, the learned Lord Advocate conceded that an overspill agreement which had a provision for an additional payment to be made by an exporting authority to a receiving authority would, as he put it, almost inevitably mention the services in respect of which the payment was being made.

Mr. Browne: What is the reference?

Mr. Fraser: About 10.30 p.m. on Tuesday. 21st May; that is as near as I can give it. It may have been at 27 minutes past.
My hon. Friends and I find it very difficult to believe that any exporting authority would commit itself to making a payment to a receiving authority and bind itself in the agreement to make this payment without there being in the agreement some mention of the services in respect of which the payment was being made. I could not imagine any authority doing that, and I doubt if any Minister could.
If Glasgow Corporation makes an overspill agreement with Kilmarnock or Kirkintillock, and Kilmarnock or Kirkintillock provide not only the houses but


some additional local authority services for the benefit of the people to be transferred from Glasgow, Glasgow Corporation undertaking to make an additional payment towards the provision of those services, does the Secretary of State believe that Glasgow Corporation will write into that agreement an undertaking to pay a specified sum of money in respect of unspecified services? I do not imagine that it would, and I do not think that any Minister does. But that is precisely what the Joint Under-Secretary was arguing in Committee, and then the learned Lord Advocate went so far as to say that he believed that the agreement would almost inevitably say what the money was for.
We believe that the agreement must say what the money is for, and that, we believe, is the effect of the Amendment I have moved. I need say little more about it. My only regret is that, as one reaches this stage of a Bill, one finds many Amendments one would like to discuss which are not selected for discussion. When one moves an Amendment which is selected one has only the one chance of making a speech, and, if it is not accepted, one cannot come back and reply to the Government. However, it seems that the case for this Amendment is absolutely plain, and I hope that the Government will not boggle at it.

Mr. Thomas Steele: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The effect of the Amendment would be that if, and only if, an exporting authority decided to make a payment to the receiving authority in respect of industrial and other accommodation, the nature of that would have to be precisely stated in the overspill agreement. The reason I feel that we should be wiser not to accept the Amendment is that, in the case of, for instance, small burghs, the receiving authority would not be in a position to deal with industrial accommodation and the like until it had got authority to do so under a town development scheme. At the stage of the overspill agreement, it would not be possible to specify in the agreement precisely what the industrial accommodation was.

Mr. T. Fraser: If the hon. and learned Gentleman will read subsection (5), he will see that

An overspill agreement may provide for the making … of such additional payments … as may be specified in the agreement.
The payments must be specified. If the payments are to be specified, why not the purposes for which they are made?

6.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Because at that stage the receiving authority, at any rate, if a small burgh not having power to deal with industrial accommodation, is not in a position to say what industrial accommodation it can provide. For example, if Glasgow were willing to make a payment to a small burgh, it would not be in a position to do so unless the precise accommodation were specified in the overspill agreement, because, under the Amendment, the accommodation must be specified in the overspill agreement.
We do not want these words because we want to leave it open to Glasgow, for instance, to say that it will pay a percentage or a fixed sum in regard to expenses or deficits, without there being any need at that particular stage to state the precise services in respect of which the payment is being made. That is the reason. I assure the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that, in effect, his Amendment would prevent a receiving authority receiving a payment which, under the Bill, it could receive if Glasgow were prepared to make it.

Mr. Ross: I have heard many confusing explanations, but in that speech the Solicitor-General surpassed himself. He tells us that it is impossible to include what we ask for in an agreement because a small burgh may not have the powers to provide the facilities which may be specified. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman take the trouble to read the Clause together with our Amendment? It reads:
An overspill agreement may provide for the making by the exporting authority to the receiving Authority of such additional payments …as may be specified in the agreement"—
It is after that presumption that there is something in the overspill agreement in relation to payments that there should, in our view, be a statement of the things for which those payments already written into the agreement are being made.
If the authority is not in a position to provide them, there is no need—indeed,


it is impossible—to have provision for the payments to be there in the first place. Our Amendment takes effect only on the presumption that there is, in the overspill agreement, something laid down in respect of the payments.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: My point was simply that, under the Bill as it stands, one has to specify what the payments are, but one does not have to specify the precise services. It is difficult, in some cases it may be impossible, to specify precisely what these services are, and that is the reason why I suggest that the House ought to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: The intervention of the Solicitor-General is neither apt nor timely. We propose that words should be added in line 5, so that the subsection would read:
… being payments towards the expenses of providing the housing accommodation to which the agreement relates, or industrial or other accommodation or other facilities provided or to be provided in connection therewith and specified in the agreement …
There is nothing illogical in saying that, if one is making provision for a payment, one should say what the payment is to be for. That is all. Indeed, how on earth can one make provision for a payment for something if one does not say what that something is?

Mr. Fraser: Hear, hear.

Mr. Ross: It is as simple as that. The Government have tied themselves needlessly by what they have said. How does even what the Solicitor-General has just said fit in with what the learned Lord Advocate said in Committee? I suppose there is some contact between the Law Officers. The Lord Advocate as much as said that it could be in the agreement and he said that if it was not, it would he an addendum to the agreement.
What is the difference? If it is possible to specify payments for certain items, surely it is inevitable that the things for which payment is made should be specified also. We are dealing not with general services, but with particular things,
industrial or other accommodation or other facilities provided or to be provided in connection therewith ".

If we are providing for the payment, surely we should ensure that these matters are listed.
For the life of me, I cannot understand the heavy weather that the Government are making of the Amendment, which would not put them into any difficulty but would, in fact, start making sense of the Clause. I sincerely hope that the Government have not said their last word on it.

Mr. Lawson: I, too, hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will have more to say. I understand how an exporting authority, for example, might agree to a certain percentage on a given charge, but I cannot understand why it would agree to pay, say, 5 or 10 per cent. or a certain contribution towards the entire cost of a job without in some way specifying what the job should cover.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend will be aware, no doubt, that on 21st May the Lord Advocate said:
Strictly speaking, an overspill agreement will make reference to additional payments, and will almost inevitably set out what they are for."—[OFFRIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee. 21st May, 1957; c. 1157.]

Mr. Lawson: I understand the desire for elasticity, but there is all the elasticity that is necessary. If, for example, additional sanitation was needed for an area, and if the exporting authority specified that it would make a certain proportionate contribution, or even if it said that if the sanitation cost more than was anticipated it would pay a certain amount more, it would still have to relate any payment which it made to something that was to be paid for. The figure need not be specified in all cases when the entire cost cannot be known if the work is done on the basis of a lump sum.
It may be desirable to have elasticity, but, surely, there will always be a sum paid towards a particular service and that service, surely, will be specified; it is desirable that it should be. I can hardly envisage an authority allowing an agreement to pass without specifying the items on which it was prepared to make a contribution. I cannot see why the hon. and learned Gentleman is not prepared to accept the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The reason that I am not prepared to recommend the acceptance of the


Amendment is that it might well deprive a small burgh of a contribution from an exporting authority which it would receive under the Bill as it stands. Naturally, in most cases, it will be specified in the overspill agreement whether contributions are to be made in respect of industrial accommodation and the like—not only the payment, but the accommodation to be provided.
There might, however, be cases where it was not specified, as the Amendment would have it, but stated in general terms. That is where the Amendment falls down, because it uses the word "specified". That would cut out the particular case where a specification had not been worked out in advance and had to be worked out later in the town development scheme. It is to avoid this trouble that I believe the proposed words are not merely unnecessary, but would be harmful.

Mr. T. Fraser: I wonder whether, in using "specified", we have chosen the right word. In view of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has said, I should like to know whether, if we withdraw the Amendment, he will put down an Amendment in another place to give effect to what he has just said so that there will be a general reference to the purpose for which the payment is made.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That is a matter which local authorities can surely decide perfectly well themselves.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10.—(TOWN DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 8, line 38, to leave out "any local or" and to insert "the receiving or any".
Would it be for the convenience of the House, Mr. Speaker, if this, which is the first of a group of Amendments, were taken together with the Amendment in Clause 10, page 9, line 17, to leave out from "impose" to the end of line 20, and to insert:
on any authority any duty other than a duty relating to any water supply or sewerage service required for the purposes of the scheme".
and the Amendments to the Second Schedule, in page 26, line 15, to leave out "local or", in lines 20 and 31, to

leave out "local or public" and in line 40, to leave out from "imposing" to "who" in line 42 and to insert:
any duty on any public authority he shall give notice of his intention to the receiving authority and any public authority affected by the modification

Mr. Speaker: If that is for the convenience. of the House, I have no objection.

Dr. Dickson Mahon: May we have a note of those Amendments again? I certainly did not hear them.

Mr. Browne: The two main Amendments are those in page 8, line 38, and in page 9, line 17. They both refer to taking out the words "local authority". The last four Amendments to the Second Schedule are more or less consequential.

Mr. Speaker: I think they can be treated as such when we come to them.

Mr. Browne: The first Amendment, the substance of which was discussed in Committee, makes it quite clear that any statutory duty placed on an authority by a town development scheme can only be upon the water and sewerage authority or authorities concerned and upon the receiving authority in its capacity as housing authority as extended under the Bill.
The House will realise that under the Bill, a receiving authority is only a housing authority, because in Clause 8 (2) a receiving authority is a local authority and in Clause 27 (1) a local authority is a local authority within the meaning of the principal Act—namely, a housing authority. Thus, while a town development scheme may indicate that particular parts of an area are reserved for schools, recreation grounds, fire stations and so on, the authority responsible, even though it were the receiving authority, as it might be in the case of a county council, will not be obliged to proceed as indicated. It will, in relation to the overspill area, assess the needs and priorities for the provision of these services other than housing in the same way as for others parts of its area of authority.
6.30 p.m.
This proposal, which arises out of a suggestion made by the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser), is carried forward in the second Amendment, which also takes out the reference to the local


authority. This debars my right hon. Friend from himself placing on the receiving authority any new duties consequent upon my right hon. Friend's modifying a town development scheme, and this is highly desirable. if my right hon. Friend makes a suggestion which the receiving authority agrees then the receiving authority can of course submit an amended scheme, but it must agree first. if it did not agree to the suggestion, it would be unfair to impose the default procedure under Clause 16, because the receiving authority cannot be held to be in default simply because it failed to do something which it wished not to do but which the Secretary of State by modifying the scheme forced it to do.
We think it wise to give this power in relation to water supplies arid sewerage because more than one authority is frequently involved. In the same way, through the Second Schedule, as we propose to amend it by the last four of the Amendments now under discussion, and which four are all virtually drafting Amendments, those authorities retain full rights to object, as does the receiving authority itself in its capacity as the authority promoting the scheme and jointly responsible for it. Those four Amendments, by altering the reference in the Bill to the local authority, and by making it quite clear that the obligation is restricted to the water and sewerage authority and to the receiving authority rather than to an unspecified authority, clear up entirely what the responsibilities and duties of the receiving authorities are.

Mr. T. Fraser: I am not quite sure that I know what the position is. I assumed from my study of these Amendments that the Government were merely seeking to ensure that the Secretary of State, in modifying a town development scheme, would be limited to dealing with the statutory duties of the local authority, that is to say the duties to provide water supplies or a sewerage scheme. The Joint Under-Secretary of State, however, said that by his amending the Bill in this way, limiting the Secretary of State in his modification of a town development scheme to dealing with the provisions of water supplies and sewerage schemes, he was limiting himself in some way in exercising his default powers. That I cannot understand.

Mr. Browne: What concerned us in Committee was that the Secretary of State might modify a town development scheme in such a way that a receiving authority not wishing to modify it might be defaulted for having failed to do something which my right hon. Friend had instructed it to do against its wishes.

Mr. Fraser: The hon. Gentleman has not the same recollection of what happened in Committee as I have. That position was foreseen by hon. Members in Committee, but the other position that was foreseen by hon. Members of the Committee was that the receiving authority might undertake as part of a town development scheme to provide a public hall or some recreational facilities to make the necessary provision for an overspill population. Clause 10 speaks of a receiving authority providing a town hall, a public hall, playing fields, public parks, and says that that becomes a duty.

Mr. Browne: No. It does not become a duty under the scheme. It is one of its ordinary duties as an education authority or whatever it may be. It is not a duty under the scheme. It is simply one of its duties, which it has to fulfil in its area. It cannot be defaulted by my right hon. Friend for failing to provide a school, fire station or town hall.

Mr. Fraser: It can be defaulted by the Secretary of State for failing to provide a school or fire station, but not a town hall, under existing legislation.
Clause 10 says that any duty of a town development scheme imposed should be undertaken by "any local or public authority"—the "receiving or any public authority" as the expression would be by the Amendment. The Clause says it
shall be a duty of that authority.
Within the town development scheme there will be or ought to be a proposal to provide recreational facilities, playing fields, a public hall, and that sort of thing. If there is not such provision in a town development scheme Glasgow's overpsill problem will not be solved. The Joint Under-Secretary will remember that we called his attention to the experience in Fife and elsewhere where efforts have been made to attract miners from Lanarkshire. His attention was called to the fact that the failure to provide these things has proved a serious impediment to the transfer of the miners. If the scheme


whereby we take hundreds of thousands of people out of Glasgow is to be a success then the receiving authorities will have to make town development schemes under which they will perforce impose upon thmselves the duty to provide recreational facilities. "Not under this Bill" does the hon. Gentleman say?

Mr. Browne: The scheme may mention the provision of these things, and the duty under this Clause is laid on the receiving authority, but the receiving authority only in its capacity as the housing authority. The receiving authority, as I explained in moving the Amendment, is confined by the terms of the Bill to its function as a housing authority. Its duty is in relation to its function as a housing authority, not the other functions to which the hon. Member has quite rightly referred.

Mr. Fraser: The receiving authority, which, incidentally, will always be a housing authority, which provides in a town development scheme for sites for industrial development—provides, perhaps, factories—will be doing so as a housing authority? Of course not. It will be doing it as a receiving authority according to the terms of Clause 10.
Clause 10 says that when a receiving authority undertakes, as part of a town development scheme, to provide facilities for industrial development, the inclusion of this provision in the scheme makes it a duty upon the receiving authority to provide them. If that is not so, words have ceased to have the meanings which have hitherto been assigned to them. The Joint Under-Secretary still insists that a receiving authority is only a housing authority and has a duty to provide only houses. If it has the duty to provide houses only why do we say that a town development scheme may include provision for
accommodation for the carrying on of industrial or other activities, appropriate public services, facilities for public worship, recreation and amenity and other requirements …"?
Why does it say that all these would be included and then go on to say that any of these things when included in a scheme would become the duty of the authority? Why does it say that if it does not mean it? That is exactly what Clause 10 (1) says. If these things are included, they become the duty of the receiving or public authority, that public authority being the

authority which, generally speaking, would provide water supply and sewerage schemes. The Joint Under-Secretary says that all this is tied up with the default Clause, but if all these things become the duty of the authority under Clause 10 (1) the Secretary of State has taken power in Clause 16 to exercise default powers wherever the local authority fails to give effect to a duty under a town development scheme.
I welcome the Amendments as far as they go. They go a little way towards making quite clear that the Secretary of State cannot modify the schemes, to impose additional duties on a local authority, except in relation to water supplies and sewerage. We are glad that the Amendments go as far as that, but we do not feel at all comforted that the position of the authorities is fully protected. We think that the authorities are not being trusted, despite the fact that the Joint Under-Secretary has said before, and has repeated today, that the Government trust the local authorities.
Our quarrel with the hon. Gentleman is that in this Clause he does not trust the local authorities, because he provides that local authorities should do a duty and he reserves to the Secretary of State default powers to require a local authority to carry out that duty should it default.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 8, line 38, at the end to insert:
Provided that where the receiving authority is a county council they shall consult with the district council for the district in the preparation of any such scheme, and any duty which is proposed in the scheme in respect of the provision of facilities for recreation and amenity and other requirements may be undertaken by the district council.
During our discussions in Committee, many of my hon. Friends referred to the position of the district council, which would appear to be overridden in the Bill. I think that on two occasions the Government undertook to have another look at the wording and consider whether there could not be some protection for the district council written into the Bill, or some recognition in it of the work undertaken by the smallest and perhaps most democratic form of local authority.
The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that where a receiving authority is a county council, that council, in the


making of a town development scheme, will consult with the district council, the smaller local authority. It seeks, however, to provide that
… any duty which is proposed in the scheme in respect of the provision of facilities for recreation and amenity and other requirements may be undertaken by the district council.
I emphasise "may be".
The reason for the Amendment is fairly obvious. The district council are not often consulted by their larger brother, the county council. When a county council undertakes art overspill agreement, and follows that with a town development scheme, it may well think that it has sufficient to do to discuss the plan in general with the exporting authority. It might well completely ignore any provision that is made or is being made, or any plans that have been made, by a district council for the provision of a community centre or a public hall. Many of the village halls in Scotland are now provided by district councils, and so are many playing fields and recreation grounds.
6.45 p.m.
If no provision is made for the receiving authority to consult with the district council, we may easily find that the district council is in the course of spending a good deal of money on building a public hall or constructing a new playing field or public park whilst the county council, at the same time, is considering over-building the whole area with houses to take Glasgow's overspill population. Furthermore, the District Councils' Association take the view that, as the Clause is drawn, if Lanarkshire County Council, to take an illustration, were to contemplate making an overspill agreement with Glasgow, with the intention of housing the overspill in the village of Strathaven, the county council might discuss that plan with Glasgow.
It might discuss the number of families to be accommodated and the amenities, that would be available to Glasgow's population when it came to Strathaven. Provision might be made for the accommodation of 5,000, 10,000 or 15,000 people from Glasgow. It would appear from Clause 10 (1) that if Lanarkshire County Council included playing-field accommodation or a public hall in a town development scheme, the provision

of those things would become the duty of the county council. Within the terms of the Bill, it would appear that the district council would not be free to carry out the services for people in small communities which up to now it has provided.
We do not want to set the county council and the district councils at each other's throats. All that the Amendment proposes is that there should be consultation with the smaller authority. I should have thought that hon. Members on both sides of the House would agree that a county council should never ride rough-shod over a district council and that there should be this consultation, and that if there is to be provision of some of the things mentioned in the Amendment, and written into Clause 10 (1)—some of the services normally provided by a district council—it should be possible for the district council to continue to provide those services even when they are part of a town development scheme.
We have made this permissive and not mandatory. We have said that a district council "may" provide these things because we do not want to take the function willy-nilly from the county council. We want to provide for adult discussion and to provide that the authority mutually considered to be the most suitable to supply the services should go ahead and do so.

Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Amendment.
In the course of the Committee proceedings we raised this point and, as I understand, the Bill does not affect the powers and duties of the district councils. It does not, of course, make it obligatory for a town council to consult with the district council and that would appear to be desirable, particularly if a county council is proposing to engage in activities which might take place in the area of a district council and which might affect its activities.
It would appear to be eminently desirable that the district council should be taken into consultation, and if the position is as was stated during the Committee stage, then it would appear that there can be no harm in stating it in the Bill. There is undoubtedly a great deal of misgiving at present and whilst the Government may say that the Bill


covers this point, it would be much better in the eyes of the district councils, in particular those who are affected, if it was stated in the Bill that their position was preserved. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. C. M. Thornton-Kemsley: I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to accept this Amendment. Many of us feel that the district councils in Scotland are not very happy. They have functions to fulfil which are themselves not important, and they feel often that those functions might be increased. If they were increased, probably representation would be easier to find, whereas often in the country districts it is difficult now to find councillors to come forward to take their places on the district councils because so few functions are left to them.
My view always is that we should go to the extreme, as far as we can, to give district councils the feeling that they are not neglected. They are the Cinderellas of local government in Scotland, and where we can recognise them in our legislation, if only by name, on an occasion such as this, without necessarily increasing their functions but letting them know they are not forgotten and that they will be consulted by their big brothers, the county councils, in respect of any powers they have, we should take that course. We might do that here because we are dealing only with those cases where district councils have specific duties in the reception areas.

Mr. John Mackie: If I may interrupt my hon. Friend, I agree with much of what he is saying about district councils being the Cinderellas of Scottish local government, but does he not think, on reflection, that it would be a rather big jump from graveyards to overspill?

Mr. Thornton-Kemsley: Yes, that is true, but where they have powers, small though they may be, such as the powers about which the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) has spoken, it is right that they should be consulted by the county councils in the preparation of an overspill scheme. Those powers are permissive, not mandatory, so I hope that my hon. Friend will accept the Amendment.

Mrs. Jean Mann: The Amendment is simple and understandable, so simple that the wayfaring man, though a fool, cannot err therein. Therefore, I do not propose to waste the time of the House with unnecessary words. The Secretary of State for Scotland is probably aware that any departure from this practice in the past has caused friction. Will his hon. Friend now tell us whether he can accept the Amendment, and if not, why?

Mr. J. N. Browne: That last sentence of the hon. Lady is what might be termed a fair question. It was made clear during the discussion on the previous Amendment that no duty can be laid by a town development corporation upon a county council in this Bill other than its duty as a housing authority, that is to say, if the county council is a receiving authority. For that reason, I must tell the hon. Lady that the word "duty" in this Amendment is not applicable, and for that reason only we shall have to reject the Amendment.
I appreciate the feeling of concern, of neglect, of misgivings expressed by hon. Members about the position of the district councils—

Mr. Willis: I cannot understand this, any more than I could understand the previous Amendment. This Clause states that
… any duty which it proposes should be undertaken by any local or public authority shall be a duty of that authority.
That is precisely the opposite of what the hon. Gentleman has just said.

Mr. Browne: That is exactly the point I was making.

Mr. Willis: The hon. Gentleman was making the opposite point.

Mr. Browne: The duty of a receiving authority is the receiving authority in its capacity as a housing authority because the definition of the receiving authority in Clause 8 (2) refers to a local authority as the receiving authority. If the hon. Gentleman will turn to Clause 27, which is the definition Clause, he will see that it is read in conjunction with the principal Act as follows:
This Act shall be construed as one with the principal Act …
This means that the duty can only be laid on the receiving authority in its


capacity as housing authority. That was the point we dealt with in the previous Amendment. If the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) will follow me—I know he is engaged elsewhere—

Mr. T. Fraser: I am reading the Clause again.

Mr. Steele: May I interrupt? We are trying to have a consultation to see whether we can follow the hon. Gentleman. What do all these things mean in Clause 10—
… the carrying on of industrial or other activities, appropriate public services, facilities for public worship, recreation and amenity and other requirements …
We are trying to relate those to what he is saying.

Mr. Browne: The receiving authority has many powers, but they are under other Measures than this Bill, to carry out statutory duties such as education, police and fire. For the purpose of this Bill, however, the receiving authority is the housing authority only, and that is a duty which cannot be undertaken by the district councils.

Mr. Willis: May I put this brief but important point? Nobody on this side of the House understands the Amendment. It might simply be the housing authority accepting a statutory housing duty of a local authority but it can also, and surely does under the town development scheme, accept as part of that scheme other duties.

Mr. Browne: It has other duties to provide other services, but for the purpose of this Bill it is the receiving authority. Its duties to provide fire and police are under other enactments. I was trying to say to the district councils that we appreciate the concern expressed by the House. I can assure the House that the rights of the district councils are maintained intact.
The hon. Member for Hamilton suggested that a housing scheme might upset arrangements for a community centre. The district councils have the right themselves to raise objections, either at the stage when the development plan is promoted, because the town development scheme has to conform with the overall development plan or, as in the

case mentioned by the hon. Gentleman, if the overspill town development scheme requires the development plan to be amended, the district council can object at that stage. Thus, it knows exactly what is going on.
As the law stands, district councils have powers of their own. My hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) mentioned one of the powers. Under the present law, a county council can delegate certain powers to a district council. This is a matter, now and after the Bill is enacted, between the county council and the district council—

7.0 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: No, it is not. It is not a matter between the county council and the district council unless the hon. Gentleman accepts that part of the Amendment which says that there shall be consultation. If he does not accept that, it is a matter not between the two authorities but for the county council.

Mr. Browne: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will let me finish my carefully prepared sentence. It is a matter between the county council and the district council, and there is really no more reason to require statutory consultation here than there is in respect of many other authorities, such as those concerned with the police or fire services, which are also concerned in overspill development. We do not see that we could add anything to what exists when consultation is the rule and so many other authorities are in exactly the same position as district councils.

Mr. Woodburn: Technically, and according to the letter of the law, the Joint Under-Secretary may be correct in saying that there is no necessity to do things, but a lot of things are desirable even though they are not necessary. The argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) showed that what we propose is desirable, and he was supported by the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. Thornton-Kemsley).
Clause 10 certainly does not lay down as a duty "what we propose, but it specifies some of the things which will be done as a result of the Bill. It may be that it is not possible to specify as a "duty" what we want done. There does


not seem to be a definition of "duty" in the Bill. The hon. Gentleman seems to have a limited interpretation of the word, and unless his definition of "duty" occurs in another Measure, it seems to me that it might be possible to challenge it in a court of law. I should be glad if he would tell us where he obtains his restricted definition of "duty."
Apart altogether from the question of "duty", there is no doubt that local authorities will be carrying out work in connection with providing recreation centres, parks and other things for the incoming population. My hon. Friend suggested that in that event a district council, which has responsibilities for that work, should out of courtesy be consulted. Technically, county councils can delegate many things to district councils, but we are continually receiving complaints that they do not delegate matters in the way they should and that district councils feel starved of responsibility.

Even if it is only out of courtesy to district councils, some such provision as ours should be incorporated in the Bill. If "duty" sticks in the hon. Gentleman's throat, perhaps he will undertake to consider the matter and arrange that when the Bill is in another place some words shall be inserted to provide for consultation with district councils. Sometimes district councils are treated as if they do not exist. My hon. Friend has proposed that we should insert words in order to recognise their existence and to accord them the courtesy of consultation about affairs which are their responsibility. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will give us the promise for which I have asked. Otherwise, we must contest the Amendment in the Lobby.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 182, Noes 213.

Royle, C.
Swingler, S. T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Short, E. W.
Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)
Willey, Frederick


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Williams, Ronald (Wigan)


Skeffington, A. M.
Tomney, F.
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
Viant, S. P.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Warbey, W. N.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Sparks, J. A.
Watkins, T. E.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Steele, T.
Weitzman, D.
Woof, R. E.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Stonehouse, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Stones, W. (Consett)
West, D. G.
Zilliacus, K.


Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Wheeldon, W. E.



Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Holmes and Mr. John Taylor.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
McLean, Neil (Inverness)


Aitken, W. T.
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Alport, C. J. M.
George, J. C. (Pollok)
Maddan, Martin


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Godber, J. B.
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.


Anstruther-Cray, Major Sir William
Gower, H. R.
Markham, Major Sir Frank


Arbuthnot, John
Graham, Sir Fergus
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.


Armstrong, C. W.
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Marshall, Douglas


Ashton, H.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mathew, R.


Atkins, H. E.
Green, A.
Maude, Angus


Baldwin, A. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Balniel, Lord
Grimond, J.
Mawby, R. L.


Barber, Anthony
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Barlow, Sir John
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Barter, John
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.W.)
Nairn, D. L. S.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Harris, Reader (Heston)
Neave, Airey


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Nugent, G. R. H.


Bennett, Dr Reginald
Hay, John
Oakshott, H. D.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Bidgood, J. C.
Hicks Beach, Maj. W. W.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Osborne, C.


Bishop, F. P.
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Page, R. G.


Black, C. W.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Body, R. F.
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Partridge, E.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hope, Lord John
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Braine, B. R.
Hornby, R. P.
Pitman, I. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Pott, H. P.


Bryan, P.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Powell, J. Enoch


Burden, F. F. A.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Price, David (Eastlaigh)


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clarke(E'b'gh, W.)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Campbell, Sir David
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Cary, Sir Robert
Hyde, Montgomery
Profumo, J, D.


Channon, Sir Henry
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Raikes, Sir Victor


Cole, Norman
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Rawlinson, Peter


Cooke, Robert C.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Redmayne, M.


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Robertson, Sir David


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. Sir Lancelot
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Keegan, D.
Roper, Sir Harold


Cunningham, Knox
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Russell, R. S.


Currie, G. B. H.
Kerr, H. W.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Dance, J. C. G.
Kimball, M.
Sharples, R. C.


Davidson, Viscountess
Kirk, P. M.
Shepherd, William


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Lambert, Hon. G.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Leather, E. H. C.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Doughty, C. J. A.
Leburn, W. G.
Speir, R. M.


du Cann, E. D. L.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Duthie, W. S.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Stevens, Geoffrey


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Longden, Gilbert
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrovo)
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Steward, Sir William (Woolwich, W.)


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Storey, S.


Errington, Sir Eric
McAdden, S. J.
Studholme, Sir Henry


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Fell, A.
McKibbin, A. J.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Finlay, Graeme
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Temple, John M.


Fisher, Nigel
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Foster, John
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)







Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R, (Croydon, S.)
Victors, Miss Joan
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Wills, C. (Bridgwater)


Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Woollam, John Victor


Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wall, Major Patrick
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Webbe, Sir H.



Vane, W. M. F.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Colonel J. H. Harrison and




Mr. Brooman-White.

Amendment made:

In page 9, line 17, leave out from "impose" to end of line 20, and insert:
on any authority any duty other than a duty relating to any water supply or sewerage service required for the purposes of the scheme".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause 11.—(PROVISION OF WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE SERVICES UNDER TOWN DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES.)

Amendment made: In page 9, line 33, leave out "is" and insert "are".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Clause 12.—(ALLOCATION OF EXPENDI- TURE ON WATER SUPPLIES AND SEWERAGE SERVICES UNDER TOWN DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 10, line 5, to leave out "and not otherwise" and to insert "only'.
I will not pretend that this Amendment deals with a very important matter, but, that being so, perhaps the Government will accept it. The Government said in Committee that they were terrified of these words. The Solicitor-General said that the words had a rather horrible look about them. The Bill has a sufficiently horrible look about it without leaving in these words which, it is freely admitted, do not enhance the beauty of the Bill.
The Solicitor-General said, later, that he was open to suggestions on the subject and I propose that we should insert the word "only" instead of the rather horrible phrase now there. The Solicitor-General implied that he wanted to leave it absolutely clear that money could be requisitioned only from a receiving authority. The simple thing to do is obviously to insert the word "only". Provided that I can have an assurance that the Government will accept the Amendment, I will sit down.

Mr. James H. Hoy: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I recommend the House to accept the Amendment. I always believe in brevity.

The expression is shorter than that now in the Bill and has the same effect.

Mr. Woodburn: I compliment the Solicitor-General on having drawn a lesson from the General Assembly and turning the other cheek. That was certainly not his attitude upstairs.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 14.—(EXCHEQUER CONTRIBUTIONS TOWARDS RECEIVING AUTHORITIES' EXPENSES UNDER TOWN DEVELOP- MENT SCHEMES.)

7.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 11, line 37, to leave out "undertake to pay, and".
This Amendment is consequential on an Amendment which was accepted in Committee, changing the word "may" to "shall". The local authority now has a statutory right to this payment and, accordingly, there is no need for my right hon. Friend in addition to give an undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16.—(PROVISION FOR FAILURE TO CARRY OUT DUTIES UNDER OVERSPILL AGREEMENTS OR TOWN DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES.)

Mr. Woodburn: I beg to move, in page 13, line 27, to leave out "or if" and to insert "and".
This appears to be a drafting Amendment and, in some ways, it ought to have been a drafting Amendment. We had hoped that the Government would have introduced a similar Amendment after having agreed, at the end of a long debate in Committee, which was really a considerable waste of time, that there was a redundancy in the Clause and that there was a duplication, because the greater powers in the second part obviously included the lesser powers in the beginning. We thought that the Government would introduce an Amendment to make the matter simpler and clearer and to state exactly what were the Secretary of State's powers.
If the Secretary of State is "of opinion" that an investigation should be made, that


provision is bound to cover any other kind of case. If somebody sends a complaint to him, presumably he forms his opinion from the complaint. It seems unnecessary to clutter the Bill with unnecessary words. The Solicitor-General resisted this in Committee as though it would make a substantial alteration to the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) moved the Amendment in Committee with much courtesy and said that he wanted only an assurance that the draftsmen and the Solicitor-General would look into the matter. The Solicitor-General developed such heat about it that one would have thought my hon. Friend was suggesting that the Government should give more money to local authorities. In fact, it was merely a simple change in the Bill.
The hon. and learned Gentleman may not be aware that, at a later stage, when the point was specifically put to the Lord Advocate as to whether the greater powers in the second part of the Clause do not include the smaller powers at the beginning, the Lord Advocate said that he thought there was a point in that. Since the Lord Advocate thought there was a point in it, we thought there was point in the matter being reconsidered, and we shall be glad to hear from the Solicitor-General for Scotland that, even if he is not prepared to accept the Amendment as it is drafted at the moment, he will be prepared to look at this Clause again, and if necessary to put the wording right in another place.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry I cannot be more forthcoming to the right hon. Gentleman, but we have looked at this with considerable care. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, it follows a standard form. I do not say that a standard form is necessarily always right, but there are two different possibilities. One is that the Secretary of State should receive complaint, and the other is that the Secretary of State should, through administrative information or the like, form his own judgment whether an inquiry is necessary. I do not think it would make a great difference, but I believe that it is better to leave the Clause as it stands.

Mr. Ross: The explanation which we have had of the Government's refusal to accept the Amendment is far from satis-

factory, and certainly not very full. I am deeply disappointed, after the long discussion which we had in Committee, and having eventually brought the Government to the position in which they were prepared to look at this matter. This is a matter of common sense, and I am surprised that the Solicitor-General for Scotland is so obdurate.
I am not able to believe that he is responsible for this decision. It must be the silent Secretary of State himself. The right hon. Gentleman will not leave that Bench, because he is terrified that if he does so somebody will give something away. This Clause is a very important one, and this subsection is the one that might start in train a movement which might lead to the suspension of the powers of local authorities.
The first step is an inquiry, and that inquiry follows what? It follows upon a complaint being made to the Secretary of state
that any local or public authority have failed to do properly anything which they are required to do by any overspill agreement or town development scheme,
I think that that is reasonable. It is reasonable that, if there are complaints, there should be an inquiry, but the words which we find offensive are the words:
or if the Secretary of State is of opinion".
Surely it would have been quite sufficient to have left it to the Secretary of State, having received a complaint, then to have made up his mind whether or not it was desirable that there should be an inquiry?
We can hardly think of what is to happen under an overspill agreement without reference to the concern of Glasgow and the receiving authority about the carrying out of that agreement, if something that should happen fails to happen, and the Secretary of State, who had originally approved the scheme, being eventually informed of the failure to get adequate co-operation, it is then surely up to the Secretary of State to take action. By leaving in the words
or if the Secretary of State is of opinion
we are giving an independent power to the Secretary of State which we feel is not justified.
I do not know whether we are to have in future a psychic Secretary of State who will suddenly appreciate that something


is wrong somewhere, even though he does not know about it and has received no complaint, but who suddenly discovers that something has gone wrong, and that there should be an inquiry. That is what it means. I am sorry that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) was not with us in the Scottish Grand Committee between 1945 and 1952, because in those days we used to hear speech after speech by hon. Gentlemen opposite, and I quoted one during the Committee stage by the Secretary of State for Scotland. It is all very relevant to this matter, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I fail to see the relevance of this matter. What happened in the Scottish Grand Committee in 1945 does not seem to me to have any possible connection with this Amendment.

Mr. Ross: We had a Bill then dealing with the powers of local authorities and the right of the central Government to interfere with local authorities, and I should have thought that as we are dealing here with the right of the Secretary of State to interfere with the local authorities, that also was relevant, but I will very gladly be corrected if I am wrong.
We have on record a speech by the Secretary of State for Scotland complaining of the interference of the central authority with local government. The right hon. Gentleman was sitting on the back benches in these days. He was not then referring to the incumbent of the office at that time, but to the fact that in future somebody like Huey Long might be riding roughshod over the local authorities. The right hon. Gentleman, who was warning us about this at that time, is now the Secretary of State for Scotland, and is now insisting on taking power to interfere with local authorities, despite the fact that he has had no complaints. I should have thought that that was relevant to the matter.
We are concerned that the Secretary of State, who was such an advocate of purity in the actions of local authorities, and who was so righteously and stoutly defending the interests of local authorities, should himself not only seek these powers, but, having done so, should insist that these powers must be maintained. I confess myself quite defeated by the attitude of the Government in this respect, because I cannot see what they have to lose by accepting the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: We might lose this—or a future Government might lose it. The Secretary of State is responsible for the payment of certain subsidies at a higher rate than normal in respect of overspill. At an early stage, when he is paying that grant—it is rather on the development schemes, on which he is paying town development grant—if he feels that this payment which he is making is being inflated by reason of the fact that the work is not being properly carried out, he has the duty to this House and to the country to find out what has gone wrong.

Mr. Ross: But he already has that power without this Clause. This is an additional power. The Solicitor-General for Scotland knows quite well that it is dealt with in the Clause in relation to the functions of the Secretary of State, who has all the powers in the world to suspend, to reduce, or to do whatever he likes in regard to local authorities in respect of the financing of approved houses.
We have had this over and over again. There are the terrified men who are afraid to leave the local authorities to carry on with their own work, and who insist in every case on taking into their own hands more and more power to cover themselves up and to make quite sure that there is no little escape Clause by which some little local authority may be able to assert itself in some way. I cannot understand the Secretary of State, who has made speeches on this subject, and whose party has made speeches of the same kind in the past and no doubt will be making them again in future.
At Edinburgh last week, they talked about the local authorities and how determined they are to give them a job and leave them alone to do it. But they take this power, which is additional to all the other powers they have got, and not only will they have an inquiry after receiving complaints, but even without receiving any complaints at all. That cannot be justified in this context.
When we consider, further, what happens when the inquiry takes place, and what may well happen to a local authority following the inquiry, it becomes more apparent still that by insisting upon this provision, the Secretary of State will militate against the success of overspill and town development schemes.
7.30 p.m.
There follows from the inquiry the possibility of the Secretary of State for Scotland himself assuming the power for the local authority, doing the work, incurring debt and embarking on capital expenditure. What would be the outlook of someone responsible in a local authority who knew that he had the Secretary of State for Scotland at his shoulder all the time prepared to step in—not if anything goes wrong, but if, somehow or other, in some mysterious way, the Secretary of State thinks that something has gone wrong? From that will flow all the train of events which perhaps might lead to the suspension of the powers of the local authority.
I do not think that by insisting on this power the Secretary of State is increasing the prospect of local authorities being attracted to overspill and tow n development schemes. As we have seen in Committee and in these discussions, any local authority which embarks on these schemes will be taking on a very heavy financial commitment. They have this threat that a Secretary of State, particularly one like the present Secretary of State, can insist on this power. The only insistence on having this power is to see that they put themselves in a position of embarking on heavy expenditure and are to he threatened by the Secretary of State in this way.
I think that probably the Lord Advocate is the most balanced member of the Government Front Bench. I do not think that he would be prepared to defend this insistence on the Secretary of State having this power. I sincerely hope that we have not heard the last word from the Government on this Amendment. We on this side view it very seriously. Eventually, it led to a consideration that the Government would have another look at it. I am beginning to wonder whether they have kept their promise in regard to that.
My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) suggested that if they insisted on having power to intervene when no complaint was made they did not need to have that power when a complaint was made. Obviously, one provision is redundant. If there is to be this power without a complaint, it is not necessary to have the

power for an inquiry if there is a complaint.
I hope that the Government will look at this again and give us a more reasonable explanation of why they must have this power. I should prefer it if someone would get up from the Front Bench opposite and say, "We will have another look at this. We repent of our past position of immovability and will take steps to put the thing right." I hope that the Secretary of State will break his silence in respect of the Bill. It is astonishing that he has not uttered a word, unless it were a procedural word. He might be forgetting that speech and we do not want to tempt him into repeating it. The only speech he has made at intervals, has been to say, "I beg to move that the Question be now put."
Here is a chance for him to break new ground and to make a speech in relation to one of our Amendments. He could not do it better than by rising now and saying that the Government are prepared to have another look at this Amendment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I support this Amendment, and I support the plea which has been addressed to the Secretary of State that he should accept it.
In opposing this very reasonable and logical Amendment the Secretary of State is overlooking the fact that this Clause is permissive and not mandatory. If the word were "shall" instead of "may" there would be some sense in the Secretary of State opposing the Amendment, but as the Clause stands he has ample discretion and ample jurisdiction. If I had been drafting the Amendment I should have gone further than my hon. Friends. Instead of asking that the words "or if" should be left out, I should have asked that all the words within the commas should be left out so that the subsection would read:
If a complaint is made to the Secretary of State that any local or public authority have failed to do properly anything which they are required to do by any overspill agreement or town development scheme, he may cause a local inquiry to be held into the matter.
That would make sense.
The right hon. Gentleman already has discretion, and this Clause emphasises his discretion. I fail to see the sense of putting into the Clause the words which are between the commas. We go


some little way towards making sense of the Clause by asking that instead of using the words "or if" the subsection should read:
and the Secretary of State is of opinion that an investigation should be made as to whether any such authority have so failed …
It is obvious that if we leave out the words between the commas the Secretary of State has discretion to do that. Manifestly, if he is a sensible Secretary of State he would not want to order an inquiry unless he was "of opinion", without employing the words within the commas—
that an investigation should be made as to whether any such authority have so failed …
The words within the commas are completely redundant. If the words "or if", are left out, and "and" substituted for them that would go some way towards giving sense to the Clause.
I had not intended to intervene in this debate, but as I listened to the persuasive speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), I felt I must join with him in asking the Secretary of State to consult the Lord Advocate, who sits on his left, or the Solicitor-General, who sits on his right, and to construe this Clause as it might be construed in a court of law. He would then see that the Amendment makes sense of it, but that the existing words do not.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: May I deal first with the last point made by the hon. and learned Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hector Hughes). He suggested that the Clause does not make sense as it stands, but as he knows perfectly well, there is a similar provision in a number of Acts going back to 1947, the Housing Act, 1950, and the like.

Mr. Hector Hughes: I did say that it does not make sense as it stands, but I confess that I went a little too far in saying that. My argument was that which I used in the first part of my short speech, that the words within the commas are redundant.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am not sure whether the hon. and learned Member was here when I spoke a few moments ago—

Mr. Hughes: I was.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I then explained the circumstances in which the Secretary of State might have to take action and ought to take action even if a complaint had not been made. He could not do that if the words which the Amendment seeks to delete were not in the Clause. I have no recollection of any promise to reconsider this question, but very much the reverse. I do not think that the Lord Advocate promised to reconsider it either. The Amendment which had the same effect as the one now before us went to a vote in Committee and was defeated, so I do not think there is any question of the Government going back on any promise given in Committee. This is a well-known form of words, and I see no reason why we should depart from it in this Bill.

Mr. Willis: Mr. Willis rose—

Mr. Hughes: The Solicitor-General has not really addressed his mind to the two parts of this Clause. One part deals with a complaint to the Secretary of State; the intermediate part, between the commas, deals with the Secretary of State's opinion; and the third part deals with his ordering an inquiry. My argument is that if the first and last parts of the three are linked together, they make sense. If a complaint is made, then the Secretary of State may order an inquiry.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. and learned Member must not make a second speech in the guise of an intervention.

Mr. Hughes: I thought I was intervening before the hon. and learned Member sat down.

Mr. Speaker: Not as far as I know. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) rose to speak.

Mr. Hughes: Would you allow me to finish the point that I was making, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: I know what the point is. I think that the whole House knows.

Mr. Willis: I apologise to the Solicitor-General for not being present earlier, but I was obtaining some necessary refreshment.
We had a long debate on this subject in Committee, and I am bound to say


that the Government did not satisfy me, or many of my colleagues, that these words which the Amendment seeks to delete were necessary. The Solicitor-General has just told us that they are in other Acts, which is the Government's usual excuse—"We have done this before and therefore we ought to do it again". We, on the other hand, have repeatedly pointed out that because something was done in the past does not necessarily make it correct now. When we pass a Bill surely we ought to look at the things we have done in the past and to ask ourselves whether they were the best that could be done or whether we can improve on them.
With the inclusion of the words "or if", the Secretary of State has power to call an inquiry for almost any reason under the sun. If he wakes up in the morning with an attack of indigestion and feels that he would like to do something to a local authority which at the time is not very popular with him, he can decide to have an inquiry into its work in connection with overspill and town development plans. Surely these powers are far too wide and should not be given to the Government. If the word were changed to "and", the Secretary of State would still be given very wide powers to hold inquiries.
The subsection reads:
If a complaint is made to the Secretary of State that any local or public authority have failed to do properly anything which they are required to do by any overspill agreement or town development plan…
An overspill agreement or town development scheme may affect hundreds or even thousands of people. Is it suggested that if something is being done which is not right, nobody will complain'? It must be the experience of every hon. Member that it is not that people do not complain but rather that there are a large number of complaints even when things are being done in the proper way. To imagine that populations will be shifted from one area to another, into places probably with no amenities and with all the difficulties which arise out of trying to transport people from one area to another, and that there will be no complaint if things are done incorrectly, is ridiculous. Somebody is bound to complain.
7.45 p.m.
The Government may have in mind the possibility of local authorities conniving to defraud the Government. After the phrases we have heard this afternoon about trusting local authorities, surely the Joint Under-Secretary will not suggest that local authorities will deliberately get together in order to get the better of St. Andrew's House. In any event, that they would have to be pretty smart to get the better of St. Andrew's House. Surely the Government are not suggesting that they would get together with that purpose.
Why do the Government want this wide, sweeping power? Some examples were given in Committee. There might be a Communist town council which the Secretary of State does not like or there might be a Socialist town council which he does not like. He may think that he would like to do something to injure its reputation, and therefore he may hold an inquiry. All that is possible under the subsection.
What is wrong about waiting for a complaint to be lodged? Who, in the first place, will inform the Secretary of State that something is wrong? How will he suddenly get this divine inspiration that something is wrong in a scheme which he approved two years ago?

Dr. Dickson Mabon: Not divine. More likely diabolical.

Mr. Willis: Does the Secretary of State walk up the steps of Dover House, Whitehall, saying to himself that Kilmarnock is not carrying out its agreement?

Mr. Ross: If the Secretary of State carries on in this way Kilmarnock will never sign an agreement.

Mr. Willis: That is possible, because every Clause is tied up so tightly that it is impossible to get anything done.
How does the Secretary of State first get the idea that something is not right? From his officials? In that case, somebody is complaining. One of my hon. Friends suggests that they are snooping. Surely a Government which for five years denounced snoopers is not to base its actions upon snoopers. Surely the idea that something is wrong must come from somebody. I presume that there is a complaint. The subsection does not say


who is to make the complaint. Perhaps the Lord Advocate or Solicitor-General would tell us whether it includes officials. It says nothing about them here.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If an official makes a statement of fact to the Secretary of State, that is not a complaint.

Mr. Willis: I assume that if an official makes a statement of fact the Secretary of State will accept it. I imagine that in practice what will happen will be that the official will say, "Something is wrong with this scheme. Look at these figures and these returns. They are not in accordance with another report." In that case, the official will be complaining that something does not tie up with something else, that some report or some set of figures do not tie up with what the local authority ought to be doing under the overspill agreement or town development plan. I still await the Solicitor-General's legal interpretation. Does the provision include a complaint by a civil servant or does it not?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: That is begging the question. If a statement is made by a civil servant it follows that it is not a complaint covered by the first part of the Clause.

Mr. Willis: That answer is too clever by half. I asked a simple question and I ask it again. I ask the hon. and learned Member not to try to steer round it. If a civil servant complains that something is not being done under a town planning scheme, is that not a complaint?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: No, probably not, because the civil servant is acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of State cannot complain to himself. The point is that if the matter is raised by the Civil Service it would not be in the form of a complaint.

Mr. Willis: Suppose somebody is put up to complain or it is suggested that somebody ought to make a complaint; would that be covered?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am sorry. I did not hear the hon. Gentleman's question.

Mr. Willis: Suppose it is suggested that a person ought to complain. Would that position be covered?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Presumably it would be, but then the Secretary of State does not go round like an agent provocateur asking people to complain to him.

Mr. Willis: All we are trying to get to know is whether the words at the commencement of the Clause are sufficiently wide to make it possible for the subject of the complaint to be placed before the Secretary of State without the inclusion of the words in the commas. I believe they are. The Government or the Secretary of State may suddenly get an inspiration that something is wrong and needs looking into; but that does not seem to be how things will work out. I am not happy about the interpretation touching the Civil Service. I noticed that the Solicitor-General for Scotland qualified his answer by saying "probably." I am still not certain about it, and neither is the Solicitor-General for Scotland. That is why he tried to dodge the answer about six times, and then gave a very qualified answer and said "probably."

Mr. Woodburn: The Clause ought to be redrafted.

Mr. Willis: That is what we suggested in Committee, but the Government have done nothing about it whatever. It is unsatisfactory and shows the Government up in a very niggling light.
The Government have been niggling throughout the whole Bill, and have safeguarded themselves to such an extent that scarcely a local authority will want to have anything to do with the Bill. The Government ought to look again into this matter. We do not want all sorts of inquiries being conducted because somebody has given information secretly that he ought not to have given. We have had enough of that sort of thing, and we do not want it to happen in relation to the Bill.

Dr. Dickson Mabon: If the Solicitor-General for Scotland—

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Divide.

Dr. Mabon: I do not appreciate the noise made by the trombone opposite.

Mr. Nabarro: Divide.

Dr. Mabon: I beg the hon. Gentleman's pardon. I see that he is not a trombone.
The serious point here is that we thought the Solicitor-General for Scotland might be able to cite the kind of instance where a complaint would be made by a private person or by some other agency, to the Secretary of State about some occurrence in connection with an overspill agreement or a town development scheme. There might be no genuine or reasonable complaint, other than on the part of the Secretary of State himself. The Solicitor-General for Scotland has not told us.
I cannot see any circumstance which would be neglected by people making representations to the Secretary of State. That is the kernel of our argument and is quite simple. We feel that it is possible, in the various difficulties and deficiencies which can arise for the receiving authority, for private citizens for public agencies to bring a matter to the notice of the Secretary of State. If we are wrong, I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will inform us and give us examples.
There may be an honest, genuine difference of opinion between us. He may feel that there could be circumstances, while we feel that there cannot, while he cannot demonstrate that there is. We ask the Solicitor-General for Scotland to weigh in the balance the other argument which has been complemented by the argument that the Secretary of State himself used when in opposition. I assume that he argued it genuinely and sincerely. The argument was that increase in the power of the central authority is bad where it is unnecessary and where, the Secretary of State could use it malevolently to the disruption and undermining of the influence of the local authority. That is a powerful argument. If it had been used by an irresponsible back bencher one could discount it as exaggerated, but it has been used by the present Secretary of State, and therefore we cannot dismiss it.
The worth of the Amendment will be determined by the balance between the powerful argument about central government interference on the one hand and the worthwhileness of the provision in the Bill on the other. The Solicitor-General for Scotland ought to be a little more fair and give us an illustration showing

exactly what the position is, so that we shall know where to strike the balance.

Mr. Hubbard: We have reached an extraordinary stage in this Bill. Nothing compels the local authorities to accept an overspill agreement, which is entered into voluntarily between exporting authorities and receiving authorities. So far, our local authorities have had no experience whatever of these matters.
The success of the Bill will depend upon whether the importing authorities will give it a trial. Therefore, the Bill ought to be made as attractive as possible. There ought not to be a hidden menace. We are not asking the Government Front Bench too much when we say it should make the Bill as clear as possible, with no snags in it for the local authorities. So long as the local authorities carry out their normal functions they are under the heavy hand of the Treasury but at least they know where the menace lies.
Here, we are confronted with something new. There is the tremendous problem of 300,000 overspill people in Glasgow. The Government have decided to get away from the new town idea at the moment by getting receiving authorities to enter into agreements to receive the people and provide them with employment, and to make factories, incurring an unknown financial liability to do so. But before they incur this unknown financial liability they want to be sure that there is nothing they do not understand. Not a single word have we had from the Scottish Office to make it possible for the local authorities to understand the situation.
8.0 p.m.
I appeal to the Joint Under-Secretary of State to help us. We know that this provision is necessary, and although we are not satisfied that town development is all that is wanted, we are prepared to help the Government. There must be many local authorities which are anxious to help, but how can we expect local authorities to help the Government if the Government refuse to help local authorities even to the extent of explaining their reason for refusing to accept this simple Amendment?
Surely, local authorities are entitled to know from what sources complaints may


be expected. Let us suppose, for instance, that somebody involved in an overspill arrangement was not satisfied with the conditions in the area which other people had been tolerating for years. Would the Secretary of State call an inquiry in those circumstances? In addition, could the complaint be made by one person or would it have to come from a group of persons? Would a complaint have to come from a whole organisation such as the Housewives' League? Surely, we are entitled to know how substantial the group would have to be, and of what standing.
If the Secretary of State is not prepared to go some way to meet the receiving authorities, let us consider what is at stake. The authorities undertake to do certain things, and then all of a sudden without any intimation the Secretary of State calls an inquiry. That is a most unreasonable state of affairs for any local authority to have to accept. Surely, words are not beyond the Scottish Office. Surely the Scottish Office is capable of explaining this matter. It could have been passed long ago if we had had the simple explanation for which we are asking. No local authority should accept all the financial and physical responsibilities of a receiving area until this matter has been made specifically clear—

Division No. 133.]
AYES
[8.5 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Burden, F. F. A.
Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)


Aitken, W. T.
Butcher, Sir Herbert
Garner-Evans, E. H.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Campbell, Sir David
George, J. C. (Pollok)


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Cary, Sir Robert
Gibson-Watt, D.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Channon, Sir Henry
Godber, J. B.


Arbuthnot, John
Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan


Armstrong, C. W.
Cole, Norman
Gower, H. R.


Ashton, H
Cooke, Robert
Graham, Sir Fergus


Baldwin, A. E.
Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Grant, W. (Woodside)


Balniel, Lord
Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)


Barber, Anthony
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Green, A.


Barlow, Sir John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Gresham Cooke, R.


Barter, John
Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Grimond, J.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Cunningham, Knox
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Currie, G. B. H.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. C.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Dance, J. C. G.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Davidson, Viscountess
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
du Cann, E. D. L.
Hay, John


Bidgood, J. C.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Duthie, W. S.
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)


Bishop, F, P.
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.


Black, C. W.
Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)


Body, R. F.
Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)


Boothby, Sir Robert
Errington, Sir Erie
Hirst, Geoffrey


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Farey-Jones, F. W.
Hobson, John(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)


Braine, B. R.
Fell, A.
Holland-Martin, C. J.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Finlay, Graeme
Hope, Lord John


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Fisher, Nigel
Hornby, R. P.


Bryan, P.
Fletcher-Cooke, c.
Hornsby-Smith, Mist M. P.

Mr. Nabarro: All very instructive.

Mr. Ross: Order.

Mr. Hubbard: I have previously said that the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) reminded me of Jimmy Edwards, but even he is not as rude as all that.
Local authorities, both receiving and exporting, have been asked to undertake large financial responsibilities. Exporting authorities are expected to pay £14 per house for ten years, and yet they do not know what may arise under this Clause. Importing authorities have to undertake house-building, the provision of factories and services of all descriptions, and yet they do not know in what circumstances the Secretary of State may call an inquiry. He cannot or will not tell us.
If the Secretary of State wants this Bill to be a success he must tell us and the receiving authorities what exactly is involved, for the receiving authorities are the only people who can make this Bill work. Without their co-operation, the Secretary of State cannot make it work. Unless he gives us a satisfactory explanation, it is doomed to failure before it leaves this House.

Question put, That "or if" stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 208, Noes 177.

Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Mathew, R.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John(Norwood)


Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Maude, Angus
Speir, R. M.


Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Mawby, R. L,
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P.(Kens'gt'n, S.)


Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Steward, Sir William(Woolwich, W.)


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Nairn, D. L. S.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Neave, Airey
Storey, S.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan
Studholme, Sir Henry


Joseph, Sir Keith
Nugent, G. R. H.
Taylor, sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Keegan, D.
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)
Teeling, W.


Kerr, H. W.
Osborne, C.
Temple, John M.


Kimball, M.
Page, R. G.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Kirk, P. M.
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Lambert, Hon. G.
Partridge, E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Leather, E. H. C.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Leburn, W. G.
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pitman, I. J.
Turner, H. F. L.


Lindsay Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Pitt, Miss E. M.
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Pott, H. P.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Longden, Gilbert 
Powell, J. Enoch 
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswiok)
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


Lucas-Tooth, sir Hugh
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


McAdden, S. J.
Profumo, J. D.
Wakefield, Sir Waved (St. M'lebone)


Macdonald, Sir Peter
Raikes, Sir Victor
Wall, Major Patrick


McKibbin, A. J.
Redmayne, M.
Webbe, Sir H.


Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Whitelaw, W. S. I.


Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Ridsdale, J. E.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


MacLeod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)
Wills, G. (Bridgwater)


Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Roper, Sir Harold
Woollam, John Victor


Maddan, Martin
Russell, R. S.
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.



Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Sharples, R. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Markham, Major Sir Frank
Shepherd, William
Mr. Oakshott and


Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Mr. Brooman-White.


Marshall, Douglas
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)


Albu, A. H.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kenyon, C.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
King, Dr. H. M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Lawson, G. M.


Awbery, S. S.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft
Lee, Frederick (Newton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Fernyhough, E.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)


Baird, J.
Fienburgh, W.
Lindgren, G. S.


Balfour, A.
Finch, H. J.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Fletcher, Eric
MacColl, J. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Forman, J. C.
McGhee, H. G.


Benson, G.
Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
McGovern, J.


Beswick, Frank
Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T, N.
McKay, John (Wallsend)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
George, Lady Megan Lloyd(Car'then)
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)


Blackburn, F.
Gibson, C. W.
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)


Blyton, W. R.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mahon, Simon


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)


Bowles, F. G.
Grey, C. F.
Mann, Mrs. jean


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H, A.


Brockway, A. F.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mason, Roy


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Messer, Sir F.


Burke, W. A.
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.


Burton, Miss F. E.
Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.


Carmichael, J.
Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)


Champion, A. J.
Holmes, Horace
Moss, R.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Moyle, A.


Clunie, J.
Hoy, J. H.
Mulley, F. W.


Coldrick, W.
Hubbard, T. F.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Oliver, G. H.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Oram, A. E.


Cove, W. G,
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Oswald, T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Hunter, A. E.
Owen, W. J.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Padley, W. E.


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Palmer, A. M. F.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)


Deer, G.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Pargiter, G. A.


Dodds, N. N.
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Parker, J.


Donnelly, D. L.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Paton, John







Pearson, A.
Skeffington, A. M.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Pentland, N.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Plummer, Sir Leslie
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)
West, D. G.


Popplewell, E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank
Wheeldon, W. E.


Probert, A. R.
Sparks, J. A.
White, Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Proctor, W. T.
Steele, T.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Pryde, D. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)
Wilkins, W. A.


Randall, H. E.
Stonehouse, John
Willey, Frederick


Rankin, John
Stones, W. (Consett)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Redhead, E. C.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Reeves, J.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Reid, William
Swingler, S. T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Rhodes, H.
Sylvester, G. O.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Taylor Bernard (Mansfield)
Woof, R. E.


Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Tomney, F.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Ross, William
Ungoed-Thomas, sir Lynn
Zilliacus, K.


Royle, C.
Viant, S. P.



Short, E. W.
Warbey, W. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Watkins, T. E.
Mr. John Taylor and Mr. J. T. Price.

Mr. Ross: In the interests of progress, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, I do not move the Amendment in page 13, line 39, to leave out "with any requirement thereof".

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Willis: I beg to move, in page 13, line 43, to leave out from "relates" to the end of line 4 on page 14.
This Amendment means, in effect, the deletion of subsection (3, b). The Clause deals with the powers given to the Secretary of State in respect of default, and it appears that the paragraph is not necessary. After all, by Clause 16 (3) the Secretary of State is given power himself to take or cause to be taken the action to which the requirement relates, that is to say the requirement set out in an Order arising out of an inquiry.
The Secretary of State having been given power to do that which the local authority has not done, it seems quite unnecessary then for him to have to go to the Court of Session, under Section 91 of the Court of Session Act, 1868, in order to have the action declared a statutory duty of the authority. It should surely be quite sufficient for the Secretary of State to be given the power to perform the action which the local authority has failed to carry out.
The subsection is really quite frightening in its requirement about going to the Court of Session in order to obtain permission to declare an action to be a statutory duty, running up expense, of course, which the local authority will ultimately have to pay. That is all right, of course, for the Secretary of State, but it is exceedingly unfortunate for the local authority.
I notice that in Section 169 of the main Act, the Housing (Scotland) Act, 1950, the Section dealing with default by a local authority, it has not been thought necessary to insert a similar subsection. If it is not necessary to put such a subsection in the main housing Act, why is it suddenly necessary to put it into this Bill? The Government are doing everything they can to discourage local authorities from accepting overspill rather than the reverse.
I can think of one possible reason why this provision is put in. It may be that it is put in in order to cover the various works which a local authority might undertake to do under an overspill agreement or a town development scheme which are not in themselves statutory duties. About that, of course, we had a long speech from the Joint Under-Secretary this afternoon; he told us that the Government had no intention of making those functions under the town development provisions statutory duties.
The hon. Gentleman moved some Amendments which were most complicated, which nobody in the House understood, and which he himself, I do not doubt, understood no better. When he was tackled about them, he could not explain them. He had a brief in higher legal technology or terminology, and I do not think he understood what it was all about. He certainly leaned over the Box in a very disarming manner as though handing out bouquets and presents to the local authorities, pointing out how gently the Government were treating the local authorities in not imposing burdens upon them and making them statutory duties. He said that the Government did not want to do anything terrible like that, but proposed to exclude everything except housing.
I can only assume now that this provision may be in the Clause in order that, if the Secretary of State is called upon to do these jobs, they might be regarded as the statutory duties of the local authority. If that is so, it knocks some of the good will out of the hon. Gentleman's gesture to the local authorities earlier today.
Why is it necessary to have this paragraph here? Is it not sufficient simply to have power to do work and then afterwards charge the local authority? There is nothing in the main Act which empowers the Secretary of State to make application to the Court of Session, yet it seems to cover exactly the same sort of situation. I hope that the Solicitor-General will explain it. No doubt, it is a question which requires legal knowledge. I hope that he will make it intelligible to us laymen who are trying to understand what the paragraph which we seek to delete is all about. At the moment, we can see no reason for it, and we should like to see it taken out of the Bill. If we do not have a very good explanation as to why it should remain, we shall have to divide upon it later, so I hope that the Solicitor-General will give us a satisfactory explanation.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.
I need not add much to what my hon. Friend has said. Under subsection (3, a), the Secretary of State has power himself to take action if the inquiry which he has ordered has reported adversely on the local authority. If he finds that the local authority has been in default and he has required the local authority by order to carry out the functions in respect of which it has defaulted, subsection (3, a) gives the Secretary of State power to take the action. That would seem to be quite sufficient.
Subsection (3, b), which we seek to remove, gives the Secretary of State the alternative power of going to the Court of Session. If anything is calculated to frighten the small burgh which might be a receiving authority and to ensure that it will play no part whatever in solving Glasgow's problem, this is it and I hope that the Government will agree to take out this power.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) said, we are driven back to the reference to "duty." In Committee, I called attention to the fact that in the Bill what had been merely a duty had to be treated as if it were a statutory duty. Earlier today, the Joint Under-Secretary and the Solicitor-General for Scotland have been saying in relation to Clauses 9 and 10 that where a duty is referred to, it is a reference only to the building of houses and the provision of water supplies and sewerage services. Those are all statutory duties, but in subsection (3) the Government are providing that the Court of Session will treat any requirement upon the local authority by the Secretary of State as if it were a statutory duty.
If it is a function relating to the building of houses or the provision of water supplies or sewerage services, it is, in fact, a statutory duty and there is no need for this provision. Beforehand, the provisions of subsection (3) to some extent led us into thinking that our interpretation of the earlier Clauses was right and that the Government were wrong. If the Government were right in what they said in resisting earlier Amendments, they should have no hesitation in accepting this one.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: One thing on which both sides of the House are agreed is that we hope it will never be necessary to use these powers. They are similar to powers which have been in operation, but rarely, if ever, used, for the past fifty or sixty years. One of the two methods of the double power is for the Secretary of State to do the work himself and the other is the application to the court to get an order upon the local authority.
In the ordinary case—for example, with housing—if a default occurred, it would be reasonably simple and probably most expeditious for the Secretary of State to go into action and get the houses built. Generally speaking, if a default occurred in a scheme of this sort, that is the action that would be taken. There are, however, other duties which may be imposed upon or undertaken by local authorities under the Bill.

Mr. T. Fraser: Such as?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Such as, for example, to choose their tenants in a particular way; they may have certain duties under an arrangement with the exporting authority concerning the tenants they receive. As the hon. Member knows, if a local authority is getting the overspill subsidy, it must keep houses available for tenants who are approved, first, by the exporting authority, and then by the receiving authority. If the receiving authority fell down on its task and was not taking tenants who were available and acceptable but was letting the houses to its indigenous inhabitants, that would be a case in which the Secretary of State could not effectively intervene and take over the local authority's job himself. It would be a massive undertaking for him to take over the selection of tenants. That is the type of case in which it is much easier and more effective to proceed by getting an order of the court upon the local authority to observe the conditions under which its tenants had to be selected.

Mr. Ross: Surely, the hon. and learned Gentleman realises that in an earlier Clause the Government have already taken power to deal with the case in which the tenants are not those who are properly to be provided with houses under an overspill agreement. The Government have already taken power to stop payment of subsidy.

Mr. T. Fraser: Would that not be the step taken by the Secretary of State if the receiving authority was not letting a house to a family from the city whose overspill was being taken? Surely, he would not go to the Court of Session, but would withdraw the overspill subsidy.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Had the hon. Member remained seated another two minutes, he would have heard the answer.
The Secretary of State has as much interest as anybody else in ensuring that the overspill arrangements work effectively. We want the scheme to work and not to penalise the local authority. It would be far better to get an order from the Court, which the local authority would obey, so that the people who are being overspilt from Glasgow—

Mr. Gordon Walker: Overspilled?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: Yes, overspilled; I hate the word "decanted," certainly in this connection.
The Secretary of State has an interest to see that those people get into the houses which are intended for them. As the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) pointed out, the Secretary of State can stop the subsidy or stop the additional part of it; but that is a partial remedy. The Secretary of State's intention is not to penalise the local authority by reducing the subsidy but to ensure that by getting an order on the receiving authority to give the houses to the right tenants, the receiving authority will go on with the job and make sure that it is the people from Glasgow, for example, who get the houses.
It is for that reason that I believe sincerely that this second peg of the procedure should be in the Bill.

Mr. Woodburn: Throughout the Bill, we always have the impression that steam hammers are being used to crush peanuts. I should imagine that on reading the Bill, any small local authority will be terrified out of its life to have any part in the scheme.
For example, can the Solicitor-General for Scotland say whether, if an agreement is made between two local authorities, that is a legal agreement? If so, does the exporting authority have any legal remedy for a breach of that agreement by the receiving authority? Can it go to the Court of Session and get a decision there?
All through the Bill the Secretary of State imposes duties on the local authorities and takes power to deal with the local authorities. Our objection is that the Secretary of State does not seem to be doing very much to help the local authorities. If the scheme is to work, and we are anxious that it should, it all depends on good will. All this intimidation which the Bill as a whole seems to ensure seems to me likely to destroy good will.
8.30 p.m.
I imagine that, if two authorities come to an agreement, it is quite right that there should be a method of ensuring that No. 2 authority fulfils its part of the bargain. No. 2 authority would probably not object if it did not get the population to be exported. After all,


in a way it is doing a favour to No. 1 authority. However, if No. 2 authority breaks the agreement on which No. 1 authority counts, is the only remedy going to the Secretary of State and asking him to use these powers? Would the Solicitor-General for Scotland answer that?
If a local authority fails, perhaps through no fault of its own, perhaps because it cannot help itself, to carry out some of the obligations which it undertakes, is it to be subjected to an order by the court? If the local authority cannot fulfil the order of the court is there to be a penalty for the local authority? Is the non-fulfilment of the order contempt of court? Can the council of a small burgh be sent to prison for contempt of court if it does not carry out a court order? A logical interpretation of what the Solicitor-General for Scotland said is that it could be.
We feel that this is a very drastic power, and that it ought to be reconsidered. We feel some friendlier sanctions should be used if there is a breach by an authority of these obligations. Can the local authority appeal against a decision, if it has broken its agreement? What means has the local authority to show it is not culpable in any criminal way or legal way for its breach of an agreement?
There are a good many questions to be asked and answered before we can possibly agree to this proposal for this power. The Secretary of State himself ought to reconsider this matter. Was this taken from a previous Act? I imagine so. I imagine that if this power has been used it has been used only for the most drastic breaches of agreements. What, in detail, are the breaches of agreement that require this court order? What are the punishments which apply to a local authority which either does not or cannot comply with the court order? Are councillors liable to a penalty? If so, what is the penalty?
If, as we anticipate, this provision will intimidate local authorities, and deter them, not from carrying out their agreements, but from entering into agreements at all because of fear of the consequences, what will the Secretary of State do to

assuage their fears and put the matter on a proper basis?

Mr. Hector Hughes: The speech of the Solicitor-General for Scotland stultified itself and went far to support the arguments which have been advanced from this side of the House. He said he hoped the Clause would never be called in aid. He thereby seemed to indicate that it is an undesirable Clause. Indeed, it is an undesirable Clause. As my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has just said, it is part of a parcel of Clauses showered forth by the Secretary of State giving him powers. As my right hon. Friend said, the Government seemed to be taking a hammer to crush a peanut.
I submit another argument against the Clause which gives undue powers to the Secretary of State. It is a remarkable Clause. It is unnatural, unreal and improper. It does two things. It changes the quality of the act of the Secretary of State, what is called in the Clause "the action," into that of an act of another and enhanced status, and it does that quite unnecessarily with the aid of the Court of Session.
I could understand it if the aid of the Court of Session were invoked to raise the status of the Secretary of State's action to the status of an order of the court, but the provision goes a step further and seeks to raise it to the status of a statutory duty. It seems to me quite undesirable and unnecessary and to be part and parcel of the general purport of the Clause, which has showered upon the Secretary of State unnecessary powers far in excess of the duty which he will have to perform in each case.

Mr. Ross: This is a matter of great importance. I hope that the Secretary of State will address himself to the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: If he does, it will be the first time.

Mr. Ross: There will always be a first time for everything.
This is a very exceptional matter dealing with very exceptional circumstances. It arises out of an overspill agreement or a town development scheme. We have already discussed town development schemes, and it was explained by the


Solicitor-General for Scotland and by the Joint Under-Secretary that what should be done should not be specified. Now, however, we are told that if a certain thing happens under the agreement, the thing which has not been done and which the Government have said should not have been specified, will be declared a statutory duty. How on earth are the local authorities to understand this legislation?
The Solicitor-General for Scotland tells us that this provision relates, among other things, to the selection of tenants. He will find in Clause 9 (4, d) that the Government lay down the solution to the problem that he posed. He will find in Clause 2 (3) that once again the Government cover the very position where there is a departure from the conditions laid down by the Secretary of State—in relation to the overspill and the withdrawal of the subsidy of £42.
If the question is one of failure to do something which Glasgow wants, Glasgow is freed from the obligation to pay £14. Therefore. a local authority, in respect of the one case which the hon. Gentleman cited, stands to lose £54 per house per annum immediately. Unless we are told specifically what exactly is in the Government's mind that makes them demand this exceptional power, we are led to suspect all sorts of underhand reasons. We are told that all this is for the protection of Glasgow against places like Kirkintilloch. What kind of people does the Joint Under-Secretary think we are that we should be prepared to accept that?
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Fife, East (Sir J. Henderson-Stewart) is not here. He went completely wrong and altogether haywire on this matter in Committee when he said that we were dealing with statutory duties. We had a nice phrase from the Lord Advocate, who said that these were not statutory duties but notional statutory duties. Now the Government are insisting upon having the power to go to the Court of Session and having these actually declared to be statutory duties.
As soon as they become statutory duties the default powers of the Government under general Statute are involved, because of the necessity for the preparation of sites for industrial accommodation

and the provision of that industrial accommodation, the provision of accommodation for all kinds of trade and commerce, the provision of facilities for public worship. They are tremendous responsibilities—

Mr. J. N. Browne: Mr. J. N. Browne indicated dissent.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Will he tell us what the provision does mean? We have tried to find out hour after hour. It obviously refers to those matters in a town development scheme including, as well as apart from, housing accommodation. On any of these things there can be a slip as regards what has been understood to be the agreement.
From my own point of view, representing an area which is a potential receiving area, I think that the Town Council of Kilmarnock will not be happy to go forward in relation to an overspill agreement in which things are not individually specified, with the Government insisting on a power to go to the Court of Session to declare those things that are not specified to be statutory duties. It will not be a happy situation for the Government to have, additionally, the power to take over from the local authority and actually to do those things, to raise the money, and to charge the ratepayers of Kilmarnock.
We have proceeded a long way from the concept of dealing successfully with overspill, that is, co-operation between the two local authorities concerned. I appeal to the good sense of the Scottish Office. Does it or does it not want the overspill schemes and town development schemes to be successful? If it does, it must trust the local authorities. If the idea gets abroad among local authorities that wherever there is any upset of plans, any disagreement as to what should or should not be done, the Secretary of State will lose patience, will order an inquiry, and will then proceed to the Court of Session, and that these duties will be declared to be statutory duties, and a big stick will be wielded in that way, the local authorities will not look at town development or overspill agreements.
The Government should think again about this matter. They have adequate powers in relation to the main aspect of overspill, and that which is sought


here is one which they should not use. Why should we have this short-circuiting of the problem by the Secretary of State taking this exceptional power? I hope that the Government will think again. Like everyone else who comes from Scotland, I am appalled by the problem facing the City of Glasgow. We want these schemes to succeed, but they will not do so by the eternal parading of powers of default and by the determination to use the big stick to local authorities. If that is done, the overspill schemes will not be successful, even after the start.
Has the Secretary of State thought what would happen if he used his ultimate deterrent? What will happen in the receiving areas in respect of those people who come in? Will there be continued co-operation? What will be the feeling between the incoming people and the local population if the Secretary of State, in a case where there disagreement, arraigns the local authority before the highest court in Scotland? Does he think that feeling will be such that in a social sense the overspill agreement will be successful?
We had tabled an Amendment to delete the whole Clause, but it was not called. We feel that the least we can ask the Government to do is to delete the paragraph. I hope that, though belatedly, the Government will recognise their duties in connection with the successful outcome of town development, and do what we ask in this case.

8.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I can assure the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) that there is no intention of using the big stick in this Bill or anywhere else. However, frequently, the existence of a power is a very good safeguard and prevents the need to use the power. We do not expect that it will be likely that we shall have to use the power, but it is a safeguard against a possible happening.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Surely the Solicitor-General is talking nonsense when he says that there is no intention to use the big stick. The Government are seeking such a power. Must not an Act be construed according to its terms rather than, as the Solicitor-General seems to suggest, its intentions?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I agree with the last few words of the hon. and learned Gentleman. We must certainly construe an Act according to its terms. The fact that one has a power does not necessarily mean that it will be used.

Mr. Willis: When was such a power last used?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The last occasion was when a dispute arose as to who should bury somebody. The question arose as between the Secretary of State and a county council whether this power should be used. It was felt that burial should move rather more quickly than the Court of Session was likely to.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) asked whether what I would call "the innocent local authority" could obtain what is described in Scotland as "specific implement", an order for performance. The answer is. "Probably yes". The Scottish law on it is not very clear, like so much of the English law. The court has a certain discretion. It will normally order specific implement—I am sorry to have to use the technical phrase—in the case of breach of contract, but not always, for it has a certain discretion. A local authority would certainly have an action for damages if it could prove damage. Accordingly, it would be what I might describe as an uncertain position. With regard to performance, unless we have this power for the court to get an Order—

Mr. Willis: What does all this mean in English?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I was trying to explain it in Scotch.

Mrs. Mann: is not the hon. and learned Gentleman's answer a perfect example of "reversion to tripe"?

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The explanation is that here, as in many other cases, our law is not as clear as it ought to be.
With regard to what happens in the case of failure, the Court of Session (Scotland) Act, 1868, makes it clear that in the event of the order not being implemented, the court may attach such conditions or penalties as it thinks fit. There is, of course, the normal right of appeal.

[THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND.]

The right hon. Gentleman asked whether this provision was in a previous Act. It is to be found in the Local Government (Scotland) Act, 1947, the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act, 1947, and the Water (Scotland) Act,

Division No. 134.]
AYES
[8.50 p.m.


Agnew, Sir Peter
Grant, W. (Woodside)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Aitken, W. T.
Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Green, A.
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Gresham Cooke, R.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Grimond, J.
Neave, Airey


Arbuthnot, John
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Noble, Comdr. Rt. Hon. Allan


Armstrong, C. W.
Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Nugent, G. R. H.


Ashton, H.
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Oakshott, H. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Balnlel, Lord
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Osborne, C.


Barter, John
Hay, John
Page, R. G.


Baxter, Sir Beverley
Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Panned, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Heath, Rt. Hon. E. R. G.
Partridge, E.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Plikington, Capt. R. A.


Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Pitman, I. J.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Bidgood, J. C.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Pott, H. P.


Biggs-Davison, J. A.
Hobson, john(Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Powell, J. Enoch


Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Bishop, F. P.
Hope, Lord John
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Black, C. W.
Hornby, R. P.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Body, R. F.
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Profumo, J. D.


Boothby, Sir Robert
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Raikes, Sir Victor


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Redmayne, M.


Braine, B. R.
Hutchison, Sir Ian Clark (E'b'gh, W.)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Ridsdale, J. E.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Robertson, Sir David


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Bryan, P.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Burden, F. F. A.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Roper, Sir Harold


Butcher, Sir Herbert
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Russell, R. S.


Campbell, Sir David
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Cary, Sir Robert
Joseph, Sir Keith
Sharples, R. C.


Channon, Sir Henry
Kaberry, D.
Shepherd, William


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Keegan, D.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cole, Norman
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)


Cooke, Robert C.
Kerr, H. W.
Smyth, Brig. Sir John(Norwood)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Kimball, M.
Speir, R. M.


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Kirk, P. M.
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lambert, Hon. G.
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P.(Kens'gt'n, S.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O E.
Leather, E. H. C.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Leburn, W. G.
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Cunningham, Knox
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Steward, Sir William(Woolwich, W.)


Currie, G. B. H.
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.


Dance, J. C. G.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Storey, S.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Longden, Gilbert
Studholme, Sir Henry


du Cann, E. D. L.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Duthie, W. S.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Teeling, W.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
McAdden, S. J.
Temple, John M.


Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E. (Kelvingrove)
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Elliott, R. W. (N'castle upon Tyne, N)
McKibbin, A. J.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, S.)


Errington, Sir Eric
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Thornton-Kemsley, C. N.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
McLean, Neil (Inverness)
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Fell, A.
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Fisher, Nigel
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Maddan, Martin
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Foster, John
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Vickers, Miss Joan


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Vosper, Rt. Hon. D. F.


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Wade, D. W.


Gibson-Watt, D.
Marshall, Douglas
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Godber, J. B.
Mathew, R.
Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. Sir Alan
Maude, Angus
Wall, Major Patrick


Gower, H. R.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Graham, Sir Fergus
Mawby, R. L.
Webbe, Sir H.

1946. Although we are here dealing with a new type of duty, it is certainly not an innovation to the law.

Question put, That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 178.

Whitelaw, W. S. I.
Wills, C. (Bridgwater)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
Woollam, John Victor
Mr. Barber and Mr. Finlay.


Williams, R Dudley (Exeter)
Yates, William (The Wrekin)





NOES


Ainsley, J. W.
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Paton John


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Pearson, A.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Hall, Rt. Hn. Glenvil (Colne Valley)
Pentland, N.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hannan, W.
Plummer, Sir Leslie


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Herbison, Miss M.
Popplewell, E.


Awbery, S. S.
Hobson, C. R. (Keighley)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Probert, A. R.


Baird, J.
Hoy, J. H.
Proctor, W. T.


Balfour, A.
Hubbard, T. F.
Pryde, D. J.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Hughes, Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Randall, H. E.


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Rankin, John


Benson, G.
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Redhead, E. C.


Beswick, Frank
Hunter, A. E.
Reeves, J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Reid, William


Blackburn, F.
Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Rhodes, H.


Blenkinsop, A.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Blyton, W. R.
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (Holbn &amp; St.Pncs,S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, H. W. (Leicester, S.W.)
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Bowles, F. G.
Johnston, Douglas (Paisley)
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Royle, C.


Brockway, A. F.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Short, E. W.


Brown, Rt. Hon. George (Belper)
Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Skeffington, A. M.


Burke, W. A.
Kenyon, C.
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Burton, Miss F. E.
Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Carmichael, J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Lawson, G. M.
Sparks, J. A.


Champion, A. J.
Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Steele, T.


Chetwynd, G. R.
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Clunie, J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Stonehouse, John


Coldrlck, W.
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stones, W. (Consett)


Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
MacColl, J. E.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
McGhee, H. G.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Cove, W. G.
McGovern, J.
Swingler, S. T.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Sylvester, G. O.


Cullen, Mrs. A.
MacMillan, M. K. (Western Isles)
Taylor Bernard (Mansfield)


Darling, George (Hillsborough)
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Mahon, Simon
Tomney, F.


Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Deer, G.
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Viant, S. P.


Dodds, N. N.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Warbey, W. N.


Donnelly, D. L.
Mason, Roy
Watkins, T. E.


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)
Messer, Sir F.
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Mitchison, G. R.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Monslow, W.
West, D. G.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Moody, A. S.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Morrison, Rt. Hn. Herbert (Lewis'm, S.)
White Henry (Derbyshire, N.E.)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
Moss, R.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A, B.


Fernyhough, E.
Moyle, A.
Wilkins, W. A.


Fienburgh, W.
Mulley, F. W.
Willey, Frederick


Finch, H. J.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Fletcher, Eric
Oliver, G. H.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Forman, J. C.
Oram, A. E.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Oswald, T.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Owen, W. J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Padley, W. E.
Woof, R. E.


Gibson, C. W.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, w.)
Zilliacus, K.


Grey, C. F.
Pargiter, G. A.



Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Parker, J.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. John Taylor and Mr. Simmons.

Clause 17.— (MODIFICATION OF S. 18 (5) OF 8 AND 9 GEO. 6. C. 33 IN RELATION TO EXPORTING AUTHORITIES.)

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 14, line 31, after "afforded", to insert "by the receiving authority".
This Amendment would improve the Clause and make perfectly clear exactly where the initiative lies in respect of the modifications made here. Clause 17

allows the exporting authority, which of course will be Glasgow, to meet an obligation to people who are being cleared from a particular area that they should have, as far as is practicable, a right to be offered a site within that area.
The Clause proposes that the obligation shall be met if there is afforded to a dispossessed person a site
in or near an area where housing accommodation has been, or is being provided …


by the receiving authority. It is only fair to make perfectly plain that it will be the receiving authority which will afford the opportunity in respect of the site, and these words should be inserted after the word "afforded".

Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. J. N. Browne: The obligation on the exporting authority, if it wishes to take advantage of this Clause, is to ensure that a dispossessed person has—then we turn to page 14, line 29,
so far as may be practicable an opportunity to obtain accommodation … in or near
the housing development. As the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) said, the Amendment limits the opportunity to one afforded by the receiving authority, but the exporting authority might well find other means of affording the opportunity, although I agree that in most cases the most likely afforder will be the receiving authority. For example, the Board of Trade might have a vacant factory, or a private owner of a suitable piece of land or buildings might be prepared to sell or lease his facilities to the incoming tenant. The site offered might fulfil the statutory requirements as to propinquity and still not be in the area of the receiving authority. I hope that the hon. Member for Kilmarnock will appreciate that it would not be in the best interests of overspill as a whole to limit the afforder to a receiving authority.

Mr. T. Fraser: I have tried to follow the explanation of the Joint Under-Secretary, but I have found it difficult to do so. I cannot see how at this point where the Amendment is proposed to be made the afforder could be any authority other than the receiving authority. The Joint Under-Secretary did not read on:
if there is afforded to the person an opportunity to obtain, on land in or near an area where housing accommodation has been, or is being, provided in pursuance of any such arrangements as are mentioned in subsection (1) of section eight. …
What arrangements are those? Those are arrangements to take overspill population from Glasgow.
Surely this part of this Clause provides for the person who is displaced by the planning authority, which is Glasgow, and its statutory responsibility to find alterna-

tive land will be fulfilled if an authority such as is dealt with in Clause 8 (1) provides land in or near an area where housing accommodation is to be provided for the overspill population. If it does not mean that, I cannot see what it means. I cannot see that any authority other than a receiving authority could possibly build the houses to take the overspill population. Surely that obligation is here being discharged if the land is made available in or near, readily accessible, to the area where the houses are to be provided, which, presumably, would be by the receiving authority.

Mr. J. N. Browne: This is only a technical point. The afforder could be the Board of Trade or it could be the local planning authority, if it were not the receiving authority, which had independent powers to make sites available. We feel that the acid test is that the exporting authority should give the displaced person an opportunity—

Mr. Ross: Is the Joint Under-Secretary withdrawing from the position he took up in Committee when he said that this could not be done unless the receiving authority agreed? Has he departed from that altogether?

Mr. Browne: It could agree but it need not necessarily afford the opportunity. This is a minor point. Other persons than the receiving authority could afford the opportunity.

Mr. Ross: This is not a minor point. It deals not only with factory accommodation but with public houses and businesses, and I hope that the hon. Member will look at it again from that point of view. The Board of Trade does not trade in public houses. I think we should have fresh consideration of these aspects in another place. I do not think we want to argue it all out here at this stage, but I do not think it has been covered by the original answer we were given.

Mr. T. Fraser: I was about to call the Joint Under-Secretary's attention to the fact that the accommodation, the land, is being afforded in circumstances in which the person who is having the land made available to him will get the land at a price which has regard to the compensation which he received from the exporting authority. This is an arrangement between two local authorities. The Board


of Trade does not own that land in the receiving area, whether it is Kilmarnock, or Hamilton, or anywhere else; it is the receiving authority which will make this land available. The land can be for a public house, or an ordinary dwelling-house, or factories, or shops, or a garage or anything else. It can be one of many sites for which the Board of Trade has no responsibility.
Surely the whole point is that the receiving authority might discharge the responsibility which an exporting authority would normally have under the planning Acts to afford land as far as may be practicable, taking into account in determining the price which will be paid for the new land the compensation which the person receiving the new land received when he vacated his previous land. Surely that necessarily involves some agreement between two local authorities.

Mr. Browne: There would be agreement, but it might be an empty factory which does not belong to the receiving authority or it might be a factory which is outside the area of the receiving authority. For that reason we cannot limit the opportunity by stating that it is afforded by the receiving authority.

Mr. Fraser: How could the receiving authority or the exporting authority relate the price which either would pay for this empty factory to the compensation which the man received earlier, if the factory were made available by some one other than one of the two authorities?

Mr. Browne: That is a matter for the exporting authority.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 14, line 32, to leave out "near" and to insert:
in the vicinity of and readily accessible to.
I prefer our Amendment to that put on the Notice Paper, but not moved, by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis). Neither the word "near," which neither of us likes, nor the phrase "within easy reach" had that sense of propinquity' which we value.

Mr. Ross: We certainly do not like that word.

Mr. Browne: I will use the word vicinity, if the hon. Member prefers it. It

is the conception of vicinity which we want to achieve. We want to make it clear that if a site is not within the housing area it must be in the same general neighbourhood and readily accessible, so that there is an association between the home of the employee and his place of employment.

Mr. Woodburn: If this goes on we shall be suspicious that the Government are amenable to argument. I am glad to see that, even to this small extent, the Government have been converted by the reasonable suggestions of my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). The words seem to meet the argument put forward, and we are obliged.

Amendment agreed to.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I beg to move, in page 14, line 35, to leave out "is" and to insert "are."

Mr. Woodburn: I hope that the Solicitor-General for Scotland will, during the course of our consideration of the Bill, place on record his indebtedness to my hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock for putting the grammar of the Bill right on so many occasions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18.—(SAVING FOR NECESSITY TO OBTAIN PLANNING PERMISSION FOR DEVELOPMENT FOR THE PURPOSES OF PART II.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 14, line 40, after "not", to insert "otherwise."
I hope that the Lord Advocate will help me by accepting the Amendment. When, in Committee, we drew his attention to the need for clarification of the Bill he said that to understand it we had to put in "otherwise" after "not." I suggested to him that at this stage I would put the word "otherwise" in. We have to think of the poor benighted lawyers of Scotland and help them as much as possible. They will not be able to understand the Bill unless "otherwise" is put into it.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. W. R. Milligan): I am not surprised that the Amendment has been put down by the


hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross). In the course of Committee proceedings I tried to paraphrase this part of the Clause in an effort to explain it, and I interpolated the word "otherwise." We would have been delighted to put in the word "otherwise" if we had thought that we could safely do so.
On reconsideration, we took the view that the word "otherwise" might be rather dangerous in this context. The purpose of the Clause is to make clear that planning permission is not granted under the Bill but under the appropriate planning Act. If the word "otherwise" were included there would be a slight doubt. In the absence of that word the true intent of the Clause is carried out, I am satisfied, and I must invite the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Willis: We have reached the limit of absurdity in explanations by the Law Officers of the Crown. First, we are told in Committee that to make the Bill intelligible we need to put in "otherwise". When we try to put in "otherwise" to make the Bill intelligible and safe we are told to leave it out.
When will the Government make up their minds and say what they want? The right hon. and learned Gentleman should have told us this in Committee and not waste the time of the House on Report on an Amendment which he now tells us he cannot accept. This is another example of how the Government are wasting an enormous amount of time on the Bill by giving bad advice and inaccurate interpretations. I hope that after this lesson the Lord Advocate will see that his advice is sound the next time he advises us in the Scottish Standing Committee.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 19.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART II.)

9.15 p.m.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 15, line 5, at the end to insert:
local authority" has the meaning assigned to it by section one of the principal Act with the addition of the district council.
I had hoped that this Amendment would be accepted, but I am beginning to despair after the reply that we had from the Lord Advocate to the last proposed Amendment. We were assured during

the Committee stage that consideration would be given to providing in the Bill some recognition of district councils. The Joint Under-Secretary of State has resisted an Amendment which I moved earlier today, and which I and some hon. Members opposite thought was a sensible Amendment. Here is a last chance for the Joint Under-Secretary of State to recognise the existence of the district council.
The way in which the district councils have been treated by the Government in recent years is disgraceful. The Joint Under-Secretary, in reply to Questions and at other times, has pretended that everything in the local government world in Scotland is perfect. He knows perfectly well that the local authority associations have been clamouring for additional powers and that every local authority association in Scotland stated before the Royal Commission on Scottish affairs that they were in favour of an inquiry into the structure and financing of local government. They agreed that there should be no considerable alteration in the functions of local authorities until or unless there had been an inquiry. Yet the Joint Under-Secretary has spoken as though no one had ever suggested that the structure of local authorities in Scotland should be investigated.
The District Councils Association is one of the principal local authority organisations in Scotland, and it has been asking for recognition in this Bill. The Joint Under-Secretary now has an opportunity of acceding to that request. A public authority is responsible for water supplies and sewerage, but local authorities have other functions under this part of the Bill. Perhaps the words in the proposed Amendment are not the correct ones for the purpose, but if this kind of definition of a local authority, recognising the existence of the district councils, is not included in the Bill, the district councils will be convinced that the Secretary of State is determined to liquidate them. I hope, however, that the hon. Gentleman has no such evil intention, and that he will accept this Amendment.

Mr. Willis: I beg to second the Amendment.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept the Amendment, though judging by the size of the hon. Gentleman's brief it appears that he is not going to accept


it. I cannot understand why not. Surely he should try to give some assurance to the district councils of their place in the Bill. Every time, whether in Committee or on Report, that we have endeavoured to secure the place of the district councils and their recognition in the Bill, the hon. Gentleman has opposed us. This is the last occasion on which we can try to obtain such recognition. I hope that the Amendment, or at least the spirit of the Amendment, will be accepted, either now or in another place.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I am afraid that I shall have to set the seal on the despair of the hon. Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser).

Mr. Willis: The district councils' despair.

Mr. Browne: I do not accept the strictures on the Government. After all, both parties when in office have been concerned with local government, and the hon. Gentleman may say of both Governments, "Handsome is that handsome does".
The principal references to local authorities in Part II are in Clause 8, which defines an exporting authority and a receiving authority; and a district council does not possess the necessary statutory powers to carry out such exporting and receiving functions. Clause 16, in page 13 line 25, refers to local authorities, but only in the context of overspill agreements and town development schemes, which, since district councils cannot be given powers under such operations, cannot apply to them. We have just passed a series of Amendments deleting, for the reasons then given, the other references to local authorities.
We feel that it would be improper to put into the Bill what would really be a meaningless interpretation. I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Willis) that the place of the district council in local government is not affected by the Bill in any way; it has nothing specifically to do with district councils. I hope that the district councils will not feel that the hon. Gentleman's remarks are at all justified; but, for the reasons I have given, we really could not accept the Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: This Part of the Bill provides for local authorities providing

recreational facilities and many other things for overspill population. The district council in a county would normally provide those services. There is no recognition of the district council's place in local government at all, and I could not possibly withdraw the Amendment. I am just as dissatisfied as I was before; indeed, I am now confirmed in my view that the Government have come to despise what is the smallest but, in many ways, the most democratic forum in local government.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: In page 15, line 6, leave out "which is" and insert "who are"—[The Lord Advocate.]

Clause 20.—(PAYMENTS IN RESPECT OF UNFIT BUT WELL-MAINTAINED HOUSES.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 15, line 30, to leave out from "made" to "under" in line 32, and to insert:
after the commencement of this Act".
This Amendment results from an undertaking given in Committee that the Clause should not have retrospective effect. The Clause extends the scope of well-maintained payments to certain unfit houses within clearance areas which do not at present qualify, and it also enables my right hon. Friend to vary the multipliers with respect to rateable value in the second alternative formula of Section 40 (2) of the principal Act.
The Amendment does not permit any house in the extended areas to qualify for well-maintained payments unless the house is vacated, or compulsorily purchased, as the case might be, after the commencement of the Act, nor can the benefit of any increased well-maintained payment be given to any house qualifying for it before the date of the passing of the statutory instrument. This fulfils the undertaking.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 15, line 37, leave out from "forty" to end of line 40.

In page 16, line 2, leave out from "has" to "been" in line 3, and insert:
after the commencement of this Act".

In line 13, leave out from first "order" to "made" in line 16 —[Mr. J. N. Browne.].

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 16, line 33, to leave out from "subsection" to the end of line 37.
The fact that the Government made the necessary Amendments to the earlier part of the Clause shows the value of going on after midnight in the Scottish Standing Committee, for it was between one and two o'clock on the morning of 22nd May that we put these points to the Government. I was hoping that the dawn of sanity would have lasted just a little longer.
I am sure that there is at least one hon. Member opposite who feels exactly the same as I do, and that is the hon. Member for North Angus (Mr. ThorntonKemsley), who will remember that at about 2.30 or 3 a.m. on 22nd May we formed a coalition on the senselessness of what the Government were proposing to do concerning the administration of the Clause. The only argument advanced by the Government was that this procedure was what was being done in England. What it meant, however, was that in respect of certain additional houses which were being brought in to get the grant for well maintained houses, an entirely different scheme of administration was to be applied.
I have put down the Amendment to enable me to express my disappointment and surprise that the Government have not put down an Amendment themselves. I feel certain that a change of the nature that we propose would have been something of a major operation on the Clause. It was on 22nd May that we finished the Committee stage and it was exactly one week later that the Government Amendments appeared on the Notice Paper.
One of the reasons, I suggest, why the Government have not performed the task which we hoped they would perform was that they did not give themselves sufficient time between the completion of the Committee and the Report stages. If that is true, I appeal to them not to let this complicated and second form of administration concerning one and the same problem to go unchanged, that they will take advantage of the opportunity of amending the Bill in another place to do as was suggested to them in the Scottish Standing Committee and that they will give that fresh consideration that they promised.
In case the Joint Under-Secretary has forgotten, I remind him that the final speech on this point in Committee was made by his hon. Friend the Member for North Angus, who said:
I hope my hon. Friend will at least say he will look at this rather complicated alternative system to see if it can be straightened out at a later stage of our proceedings. It would be of great advantage if it could be.
Then, the Joint Under-Secretary made a very important speech and he said:
I give that undertaking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee. 21st May, 1957: c. 1231.]
I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell us what has happened so far. I would rather he told us that he had not had time properly to consider what should be done. If he says that, I shall be reasonably satisfied.

Mr. Lawson: No, my hon. Friend will not be satisfied.

Mr. Ross: Certainly, we will be left with the grouse that the position has arisen simply because this stage of the Bill has been far too speedily brought on.
It will be quite ludicrous that for one type of house there should be one procedure of inspection by the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State making an order, and so on, that being obligatory upon the local authority, whereas in this case the representation is to be made to the local authority by the tenant concerned and the local authority either ignores it or decides to pay something and it is left to the initiative of the tenant to go to the court.
It is not wise to have two procedures in respect of the same problem for the same type of house. It would be far better if the Government displayed.a certain amount of originality. Simply to say that this procedure has been followed in England is not a reason. In fact, it is a good reason why it should not be done in Scotland. We usually manage to do things a little better, whether it is playing amateur golf or anything else.

Mr. Willis: Even cricket.

Mr. Ross: My hon. Friend should not boast about cricket. He was not boasting two days ago. I sincerely hope the Government will take advantage of consideration of the Bill in another place to put the matter right.

Mr. T Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. J. N. Browne: It is seldom I agree with the hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross), but I agree with him that if, in Scotland, we can deal with a problem in a different and better way than it is dealt with in England we are always prepared to do that. I can assure the hon. Member that this matter has been considered. At first, on the face of it, it appears a little unwieldy. The hon. Member has not suggested—it is not for him to do so—if a change is necessary, what the change should be, whether the work should be done by the local authorities or by the Secretary of State.
The position is this. From the point of view of administrative handiness, in the clearance areas it is my right hon. Friend's own inspectors who visit every house. Therefore, he is in the position to instruct a local authority. Under Part II of the 1950 Act, and the 1954 Act, it is the local authority which is the prime mover and which has the inspectors. and my right hon. Friend has no direct connection with the proceedings. So it was felt that the simplest way of doing the job would be to do it by these two different procedures, to produce the same result. The hon. Member did not speak of the effect of his Amendment, which would deny the right of appeal.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 16, line 38, to leave out subsection (4).
When we dealt with this group of houses in relation to the "well maintained" grant we thought at first that it was a new group of houses, but then we were told by the Joint Under-Secretary of State that it was not. We said:
Supposing we deleted subsection (4), these houses would still fall under subsection (2, a) as subject to a demolition order. It is using a different procedure, that is all."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Scottish Standing Committee, 21st May, 1957; c. 1236.]
If, by deleting this subsection, we make absolutely no difference at all I suggest that for the simplification—the much needed simplification—of our statutes we should be well advised to make this Amendment and delete subsection (4).

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I am glad that what I said in the early hours of the morning bears repetition tonight, but I can convince the hon. Gentleman that this subsection is necessary.

Mr. Ross: Do not believe it.

Mr. Browne: Yes, I can. It affects chiefly owner-occupied houses where the owners have probably been offered other houses by the local authority. After the sanitary inspector has examined the house he can advise the council that the house is unfit for human habitation. The council then advises the owner, who can do one of three things. He can undertake to make the house fit; or he can refrain from using it for housing; or he can agree to its demolition.
When demolition is the agreed course some local authorities accept from owners voluntary undertakings to demolish, instead of the local authorities themselves serving demolition orders, which they can do under subsection (2). It is these cases that are covered by subsection (4), and a number of progressive authorities, including Kirkcaldy, make use of this informal procedure. which does no more than save time or trouble.
1 was quite right in Committee, because under Section 9 of the 1950 Act a local authority still has powers, if an owner does not fulfil his obligations, and the rights of those who can claim "well maintained" payments are protected by administrative instruction. We are taking short cuts here and being a little progressive, but we want to preserve the rights of owners in these cases, and that is why this subsection is essential.

Mr. Ross: Not at all.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 21.—(REGISTERS OF RENTS OF DWELLINGS PROVIDED OR IMPROVED WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF IMPROVE- MENT GRANTS.)

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to move, in page 17, line 21, at the end to insert:
(c) the amount of the improvement grant authorised by section one hundred and twelve of the principal Act and made in respect of the dwelling and the date on which it was so made.
The Amendment deals with the registers of rents or dwellings which have been provided or improved with the assistance of improvement grants. We have never had


any justification of the Clause at any time up to now, and we are getting near the end of House of Commons consideration of the Bill. We do not know why the Clause is in the Bill at all, but it provides that the rents of these houses, built or improved with improvement grants, will be recorded in a register maintained by the local authority and open for inspection.
If the rent of a house is to be made available for inspection, including the amount to which the rent is limited and the increase in the amount of the rent—provided by the original Act under which the improvements were made possible—it would seem not unreasonable that the amount of grant paid from public funds in respect of the house and the date on which it was paid should also be included in the register kept by the local authority. If nosey-parkers want to find out what Mrs. Jones is paying rent for a house improved with the aid of an improvement grant, they might well like to know what the landlord received in value from the Exchequer and from the local authority to bring about the improvement of the house.
It would be desirable to know when the grant was made because if it was made at a certain time the increase in rent would be 6 per cent. of the landlord's expenditure and if it was made at a certain other time the increase would be 8 per cent. of the expenditure. It would be Worth while having this information included in a public record made available in the local authority office, just as other matters set out in the Clause are to be made available, though we repeat that we have no idea why the Clause is in the Bill at all.

Mr. Ross: I beg to second the Amendment.
We galloped through the proceedings in the Scottish Standing Committee at such a pace that we omitted to deal with this Clause. In future Scottish legislation we shall see that that does not happen again.
I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary will not tell my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton (Mr. T. Fraser) that this matter could be quite well covered by the words in subsection (1, d):
''such other information as may be prescribed in the regulations.

The point has been very well made in relation to this improvement grant and this register that the most important thing to record is the actual amount of the grant and the date, because the rent chargeable is to a considerable extent dependent upon the amount of the grant. The Joint Under-Secretary should not tell us that this information might come under the phrase "such other information" in the Clause. He should tell us that it will, and then we shall all go home perfectly happy.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) will go home happy when he has heard my explanation.
The reason for this Clause was that under the Valuation and Rating (Scotland) Act, 1956—the Sorn Act—where a house is subject to an improvement grant, the new rent consequent on taking off owner's rates had to be recorded in the Register of Sasines. It was pointed out that it would be a very large job for the local authorities to amend all the rents of improved houses in that register, so an opportunity was taken to alter the system to a more convenient arrangement.
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the full information, including the amount of grant and the date on which the work was completed, will continue to be in the Register of Sasines in Edinburgh—is the hon. Gentleman worried?

Mr. Fraser: The amount of the increase in rent is related to the amount of the grant. If we make available to the nosey-parker in every local office in the country the increase in rent paid by Mrs. Jones, how can that information be made available unless there is also made available the amount of grant, and why cannot that be included in the register?

Mr. Browne: I am coming to that. I wanted to make it clear that the information which it was asked should be made available in the local authority register is already available. The purpose of this Clause, therefore, is to relieve the local authorities from amending the Register of Sasines.
Local authorities already keep a condition of grant register, and under this


Clause they will either have to amend their present register, which does not take account of the alteration of Sorn rentals, or they will have to set up a new register of rents. Their present register includes the amount of improvement grant, so that if they work on their present register, the information which the hon. Gentleman seeks is already there. If, however, they decide to set up a new register of rents, we do not want to require them to duplicate the information in the second register because their present register includes it.
Whatever course the local authority decides to take, the information about the extent of the improvement grant and the date on which the work was completed will be available to anybody who asks for it. This point will, if necessary, be dealt with in the regulations that can be prescribed under paragraph (d) of Clause 21 (1). I repeat that the information which the hon. Gentleman seeks to include is already available in the local authority offices, and will continue to be available.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether it is possible to take the next three Amendments together?

Mr. Ross: I think that we should be kind to the Solicitor-General, Mr. Speaker, and, therefore, I do not propose to move my Amendment in page 18, line 27, to leave out subsection (4).

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that we have met his main point in the next two Amendments.
I beg to move, in page 18, line 30, to leave out from "for" to first "and" in line 33, and to insert:
early entry on land)".
This is a tidying up Amendment, to which I can speak if necessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 18, line 35, leave out from "provision" to "with" in line 36.—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Clause 27.—(INTERPRETATION.)

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Ross: I beg to move, in page 21, line 21, to leave out:
unless the context otherwise requires".
I had hoped that we might be able to consider with this Amendment the two following Amendments. I heard many explanations in Committee as to why the words were in the Bill, but it was left to us one celebrated evening to learn that these words were there as a trimming, just as matters of style. Let us get rid of them. I am glad to find that the Secretary of State has joined forces with us on our next Amendment, by adding his name to it.

Mr. T. Fraser: I beg to second the Amendment.

The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I ant glad to accept the Amendment. The words are not required.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 21, line 25, leave out:
unless the context otherwise requires".

In line 28, leave out:
unless the context otherwise requires".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

Orders of the Day — First Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS TO HOUSING (SCOTLAND) ACT, 1950 (14 GEO. 6. c. 34.)

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 24, line 33, to leave out paragraph 9.
This arises from an undertaking to look again at the necessity for an Amendment. As I said in Committee, the paragraph does not confer any new powers on the Treasury. These powers are already available under Section 1 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1897, amended by Section 4 of the Public Works Loans Act, 1917. The paragraph is intended for the convenience of those concerned with reading the principal Act. Hon. Members opposite did not like it. We are always glad to meet them, and so we have brought forward this Amendment.

Mr. T. Fraser: In Committee we objected to the inclusion of the paragraph because we thought it was a matter to be dealt with in the Public Works Loans Act and not in the Bill. We did not


object to the subject being dealt with legislatively, but made it clear that the Bill was no place for a provision of this kind, and that certainly this part of the First Schedule, dealing with other minor modifications to existing statutes, was no place for it. We feel that we have rendered a service by drawing attention to it, and we are obliged to the Government for their Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. J. N. Browne: I beg to move, in page 24, line 48, at the end to insert:
10. Section one hundred and eleven (which relates to improvement grants to persons other than local authorities) shall have effect with the addition at the end thereof of the following subsection, that is to say:—
(8) If a local authority refuse to approve an application under this section, or, having approved such an application, pay by way of an improvement grant in respect thereof an amount smaller than the maximum amount allowed by subsection (1) of the next following section apart from the proviso to the said subsection, they shall, if the applicant so requests, notify him in writing of the grounds of their refusal or, as the case may be, the grounds of their decision not to pay the said maximum amount".
The Amendment fulfils an undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison), who moved in Committee a new Clause having the same object in view. It is only fair that if the grant given is below the permitted maximum the applicant should know the reason why.

Mr. T. Fraser: Some of us think that the Amendment is nonsense. It is nonsense to legislate for courtesy on the part of local authorities. Most local authorities in Scotland would normally tell the applicant why the grant they gave him was less than the permitted maximum. The Joint Under-Secretary has many times appealed to us today to trust local authorities, but apparently he does not trust town clerks to be courteous to people who apply for grants.
Most town clerks are sufficiently courteous, when their authority has reached a decision, to tell the applicant why his application has been turned down. There are instances where Tory-controlled authorities have refused to give reasons. The Joint Under-Secretary knows of instances where Tory-controlled authorities have refused to give reasons,

but we have no instance of a Labour-con trolled authority refusing to treat applicants courteously. It is no business of Parliament to require by Statute that town clerks should send polite replies. We can leave that to the town clerks.

Mr. Hoy: Those who were present in the Scottish Grand Committee will remember that the Committee unanimously rejected an Amendment on similar lines. Perhaps by saying these few words we have enabled the hon. Member for Scotstoun (Sir J. Hutchison) to be present to hear the Amendment moved by the Joint Under-Secretary.

Sir James Hutchison: I want to say a word of indebtedness to my hon. Friend for having picked up the idea and for having introduced the Amendment.

Mr. Ross: It should be noted that the only contribution of Conservative back benchers to the Committee stage of the Bill was to put down an Amendment which has been accepted by the Government and which will prove meddlesome, irksome and grandmotherly to local authorities.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Second Schedule.—(TOWN DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES.)

Amendments made: In page 26, line 10, leave out "is" and insert "are".

In line 12, leave out "is" and insert "are".—[The Solicitor-General for Scotland.]

In page 26, line 15, leave out "local or".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Amendment proposed: In page 26, line 20, leave out "local or public".—[Mr. J. N. Browne.]

Mr. Woodburn: These words have a refreshing feeling at the end of the Bill.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 26, line 31, leave out "local or public".

In line 40, leave out from "imposing" to "who" in line 42 and insert:
any duty on any public authority he shall give notice of his intention to the receiving authority and any public authority affected by the modification.—[Mr. J.N. Browne]

Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed. [Bill 98.]

CHURCH OF SCOTLAND (PROPERTY AND ENDOWMENTS) BILL [Lords]

Considered in Committee: reported, without Amendment.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill he now read the Third time.

9.55 p.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I welcome the opportunity of catching your eye for a brief intervention, Mr. Speaker, and I assure you that my eye will be upon the clock the whole time. My only reason for intervening at this somewhat late hour in our proceedings is that I was unable to catch your eye on Second Reading.
As this Bill leave us for another place, I very well realise that we can only give it our final approval or condemnation, and I hasten to assure you, Sir, that I desire to give it my support. I only regret this. We are regularising the position of St. Cuthbert's, the West Church of Edinburgh, and it would have been very wrong to deny to a single parish in Scotland, however much one may disapprove of the standard of worship there, any benefit which is obtained by the Church of Scotland as a whole, and that is why I want to make my position abundantly clear.
I wish it could have been any other parish than St. Cuthbert's, because I think that there, so far as public worship is concerned—I think I am strictly in order in saying this�žthe normal standard of the Presbysterian form of worship has been departed from radically over the last forty or fifty years, and particularly, I am sorry to say, under the ministry of Dr. George McLeod. However, that is as may be. I only wish that by regularising the position regarding the endowments and benefits there, we could be regularising the standard of public worship there, but 1 think that that is unlikely to be the case.
We may describe St. Cuthbert's, or the West Church of Edinburgh, as the All Saints. Margaret Street, of Edinburgh. They have gone out of their way to depart from the normal standards of Presbyterian worship, and that is why I regret this Bill.

Mr. Speaker: I hope the hon. Member will stick to what is in the Bill. I do not see any reference in the Bill to these churches which he has mentioned.

Mr. Mackie: I was only expressing the hope that by regularising the endowments, we might also be regularising the standards of public worship, and I regret that that may not be the case. Anyhow, it is indeed a happy augury that the State Church, as the Church of Scotland undoubtedly is, has to come to this House for final approval and for Parliamentary sanction regarding its doings and actions. I hope that all those who are connected with the Church of Scotland in future—and I am a very humble member of it—will bear that very much in mind when we come to much more important issues in future months and years.
I apologise for trespassing on the time of the House. Mr. Speaker, but I certainly would not be a party to opposing the Third Reading of this Bill.

9.59 p.m.

Mr. James H. Hoy: My right hon. and hon. Friends on this side of the House raise no objection to this Bill, but I must say, speaking on behalf of all my hon. Friends on this side, that we regret that the hon. Member for Galloway (Mr. Mackie) should have taken advantage of a Bill of this kind to make an attack on an old-established church like St. Cuthbert's and also on the newly-elected Moderator of the Church of Scotland. That is a thing which we very much regret indeed, and we are the more regretful that it should come from an hon. Member for whom we have such great respect.

Question put and agreed to

Bill read the Third time and passed, without Amendment.

MINISTRY OF SUPPLY (CANCELLED CONTRACTS)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

9.59 p.m.

Miss Elaine Burton: Tonight, in raising the matter of the cancellation of the supersonic bomber and the effect on technology in Coventry and elsewhere, I should like to assure the Minister that I am not doing it either because I object to the defence cuts or only because of their effect in Coventry, but because I believe that the resources of skill, equipment and research in this matter of aircraft engines which we have developed in this country are about to be wasted in a way which I think the Government never envisaged when the cuts were made.
It is not only that cancellation of defence contracts has forced redundancy on us, but, as was stated in Coventry the other day:
It is experimental work for the future which has now been stopped.

It being Ten o'clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. E. Wakefield.]

Miss Burton: Coventry has got to be the example tonight for what I want to say, but I would ask the Minister to realise that not only in this country but, I believe, in Scotland, thousands of young people will not take advantage of opportunities in technological education because of what the Government have done. I want to suggest to the Minister that we just cannot afford this happening.
In the Budget debate on 15th April I tried to explain to the House that we had among the workers of Coventry a feeling of cynicism about the future and, in fact, a belief that there was no security of employment under this Government. As the Minister will know, apart, probably, from the 10,000 employees in the big aircraft firms in Coventry, there are many employed on sub-contract work. They and the unions are anxious to know exactly

what is envisaged for the future of employment in the whole area of the city. The Coventry District Committee of the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions has kept on asking for the Minister of Defence to receive a deputation, but so far without success.
In the debate on 15th April I told the Chancellor that in Coventry those who were emigrating were doing so no because of taxation, but because they felt that they had not enough opportunity here. I wish to quote a sentence from what I said in that debate, because it has a direct bearing on what we are discussing tonight:
I should have thought we would all agree that the type of man whom I have mentioned—an engineer or technician, skilled and comparatively young—is the very type we cannot afford to lose.
When the Chancellor replied to that debate he seemed to agree, because he said:
They are emigrating, in the main, because they want more opportunities. One of the ways of keeping them here is to ensure that they have more opportunities if they remain and make their lives in this country.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th April, 1957; Vol. 568, c. 1635– 82.]
I want to put to the Minister tonight the case of Armstrong Siddeley Motors Ltd. That company set out in 1943 to re-establish an aero-engine research and development organisation with a view to entering the new field of gas turbine engines. As the Minister knows, that activity increased regularly year by year as a result of Ministry of Supply support which was given on an expanding scale only as a result of the technical merit of the organisation.
I cannot go into figures, but for the financial year 1956–57 a large expenditure on this activity was incurred. Last August, in accordance with the usual custom proposals were submitted for the budget for the year commencing April, 1957. The proposed spend was greater still, the increase was largely due to the introduction of an advanced engine into the programme. At the beginning of April this year the company was warned that as a result of the change in Government defence policy, cuts in the development vote were likely, and a preliminary estimate indicated the probable maximum expenditure.
At the beginning of May, the company received an official letter from the Ministry of Supply advising it of the extent and nature of the cuts, and stating the maximum expenditure for the current year. That represented a reduction of 37 per cent. on the spend for the year 1956–57 and a reduction of 45 per cent. on the estimated spend for the current year. But one month of this current year had already gone and drastic measures had to be taken to reduce the spend to the maximum permitted.
As the Minister knows, the Armstrong Siddeley Company proposes to retain its staff of designers and engineers and to embark on the design and the development of new products, which it hopes will provide productive work in the years to come. The Minister knows as well as I that it will take some two or three years before the result of the firm's efforts are seen in production quantities on the shop floor.
The company is faced with the immediate necessity of reducing its skilled experimental labour force and the supporting office staffs sufficiently to ensure that it does not exceed the new budget figure. We know that immediate steps are being taken by the company to find alternative work. I saw the other day, as I expect the Minister knows, that a licence agreement has just been concluded between Armstrong Siddeley and the Garrett Corporation, of Los Angeles, covering the manufacturing and selling rights in this country of the American firm's auxiliary power gas turbine and air turbine started. Welcome though that is. I think the Minister will agree with the company and with me that it does not make the prospects of avoiding redundancy much better.
Many of the skilled people which this company will have to turn off are specialists in precision crafts who have been with the company for many years. What alarms me is that it is most doubtful whether the industries in Coventry will be able to absorb them all. In fact, on 14th May the Minister of Labour, replying to me, as reported in column 185 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, said:
I understand that 250 workers have been given notice which is due to expire on 22nd May and that thirty of these have already left voluntarily. The remainder are being interviewed at the factories by my local officers

with a view to helping them to obtain other employment. The prospects of placing them in their own occupations locally or within daily travelling distance are not good.."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th May, 1957; Vol. 569, c. 185.]
Last week, I asked the Minister a Question in which I pointed out that these numbers had already increased to 535. I quoted that Answer which he had given and asked whether those additional numbers of men would also be unable to find work in Coventry. This is not the concern of the Minister who is to reply to this debate, but the Minister of Labour on that occasion intimated that he had said no such thing; but tonight I have quoted his words.
I am not impressed, and the people of Coventry are not impressed, by constantly being told about these continual consultations between the Ministry of Labour, the Ministry of Supply and the Board of Trade. They have brought nothing to us at all. In fact, it seems to me very much as though the great cooperation which should exist between these Ministries does not come about quickly enough, because if they cannot cope with men until they have been dismissed, and if they have not advance notice of this, what is the use of having continual consultations? Does not the Minister think that it would be better if work could be found for these people in Coventry, where the facilities exist, rather than suggest that they should be transferred out of the city by the new arrangements which have been made by the Minister of Labour?
I am coming to a matter which the Minister knows I intend to raise, and it is the future of the aero-engine business at Armstrong Siddeley and in Coventry generally. The Ministry of Supply budget for this year in respect of Armstrong Siddeley does not include work on any new engine. The Minister will agree with me there. It only supports research and development on already existing engines. From that I assume, I hope wrongly, that unless a new engine is included in the programme, the Ministry support on research and development at Armstrong Siddeley will disappear when the engines at present in service and under development become obsolete.
I put it to the Minister that the planning of Armstrong Siddeley—and I think
we must accept the agreement of the


Ministry of Supply with this policy—did not see such a state of affairs arising, particularly as Armstrong Siddeley, after eighteen months of design study and in competition with the whole of the aero-engine companies in England, had been awarded the contract for the design and development of a very advanced engine. It was the engine of the supersonic bomber. I think it is obvious to anybody that the fact that the company was awarded this contract in the face of the most fierce competition must mean that in the opinion of the Ministry of Supply it was technically competent to undertake advanced projects. I am glad to see that the Minister agrees with me.
The Government's decision not to proceed with the supersonic bomber meant that the specific engine requirement no longer existed. I realise that. Nevertheless, the company, as its considered opinion, was sure that one day in the future the requirement for an engine to fly at the speed envisaged, whether for military or civil use would exist, so it submitted to the Ministry of Supply proposals for continuing with the research and development which would be required to produce such an engine. In making that statement I would emphasise once again that the company accepted that it would be looked upon as a research project for the future, and that the rate of spend for this development should be considerably reduced.
Despite all this, the proposal was turned down by the Ministry of Supply in April. It is without dispute anywhere that this country has, in the past, derived considerable export business by being in the forefront of technical development on engines. Armstrong Siddeley itself, as the Ministry will know, has earned more than £7 million from dollar sources through its Sapphire licences, with considerable further earnings to accrue. It seemed to us that continued development of the advanced engine referred to would, in the course of time, again be a profitable export project.
That seems strange enough, but it seems to become incomprehensible if we look at the speech made by the First Lord of the Admiralty in another place on 9th May, 1957, when he was giving the Government's policy. He said:
The manned supersonic bombers have therefore been cancelled, but I do not want to

give the impression that we have in any way terminated research on supersonic problems of air transport. Indeed, a very large volume of supersonic research and development remains in our programme. Much of this may well be of benefit to supersonic air transport, whatever form it ultimately takes.
The cancellation of the present bomber does not affect the Government's determination to press on with the study of supersonic transport aircraft, which has been launched in consultation with a number of aircraft companies."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 9th May, 1957; Vol. 203, c. 552.]
If a Government spokesman says that a very large volume of supersonic research and development remains in the programme surely it would have been common sense to allow that research and development to continue with a firm where all the development was ready. As everyone knows, and not least the Parliamentary Secretary, it is a long and slow business to build up a competent team of technical specialists to undertake the type of work in which this firm has been engaged. Such a team will continue with a company provided that it can see the continuing introduction of advanced projects which represent a challenge to its technical capacity.
I hope that the Minister agrees with me. I can assure him that the country, myself, and the industry have been concerned for some time at the number of young, scientifically-trained people who are leaving for the American Continent. It is no use increasing the availability of trained people unless, when they are trained, projects are available for them to work on.
To support such a team at Armstrong Siddeley's it has been necessary to provide expensive research and experimental equipment. This has been done entirely by company finance. Unless work is found to occupy it, we think that it represents a waste of this country's resources.
It is not only the management with whom I have been discussing this matter. The other day I had a letter from the Joint Shop Stewards' Committee at Armstrong Siddeley's. I would like, if I may, to read four short sections of that letter because I think they are important.
The company have been developing and producing some very high class products, which has of necessity needed a very highly skilled labour force. We feel that it would be a great pity if these highly skilled people had to be disbanded and dispersed about the country due to some extent to lack of planning


on the part of the Government. We have here at Ansty a large modern factory with new drawing offices and test beds, all of which are second to none, and there is still plenty of room for expansion if necessary. The site is particularly suitable for development and research or any high class precision work. Jointly with our Parkside factory we have a skilled labour force of approximately 6,000 workers, plus a large force of technicians, etc. We have been engaged on gas turbine engines, most of them military, for Government use; and we feel that they should now offer us alternative work here at this factory, thus dispensing with the need to disperse the workers to other areas.
It has been the policy of Armstrong Siddeley that the works at Coventry, including Ansty and their flight section at Bitteshall, shall be primarily the research and development centre for their organisation where they can combine the facilities which they have built up over the last ten years. The major production arising from this development would be carried out at their production factory at Brockworth, which, as the Minister knows, is a modern production plant employing 3,500 people. We now want to know what is going to happen to them.
In this House on 20th February I asked the Prime Minister
whether the statement made by the Minister of Supply … to a delegation from … Blackpool … that he would do his best to find alternative work for the factory of Hawker Aircraft, Blackpool, Ltd., so that the hardship caused by the decline in Service orders for military aircraft might be mitigated, represents the policy of Her Majesty's Government."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1957; Vol. 565, c. 429.]
The Lord Privy Seal, replying for the Prime Minister, said that that statement had his right hon. Friend's full support. He also said that he would discuss the matter further with his right hon. Friend.
On 20th May, the Minister of Supply said, in answer to a Question, that his responsibility
is limited to endeavouring to find alternative defence work and alternative civil work in the aircraft field, and that I will most certainly do."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th May, 1957; Vol. 570, c. 856.]
Might I emphasise the words "alternative civil work in the aircraft field"?
When the Minister replies tonight—and I have had to speak as quickly as I could—I should be glad if he would answer two specific questions, of which I have given him notice. First, what is the future long-term prospect for the aero-engine

industry in Coventry? Secondly, what is to be the policy of his Department in research and development work at Armstrong Siddeley Motors? Most important of all, I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to ask his right hon. Friend to take this matter up with the Prime Minister—in other words, the whole question of the loss of technological skill from this country because of this policy. It is in direct contrast to what the Chancellor said in winding up his Budget speech on 15th May.
Would it not be wiser, from the viewpoint not only of Coventry but of the whole country, for the Government to accept the proposal put forward by Armstrong Siddeley in the field of civil aircraft research which I have already mentioned, so that the team which they have built up, which could not be exceeded anywhere in any country whatsoever, may be retained on the skilled work which they know so well and to which they have brought such distinction? It is not a case of whether we can afford the money involved, but rather whether we can afford to have such skill dispersed or lost to other countries. I would say that we cannot lose them. The Chancellor is on record as implying that we should not lose them, and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary will agree.
I have raised this problem tonight after a good deal of thought, because the last thing I want to do is to spread despondency in Coventry. But the case of Armstrong Siddeley proves conclusively that these cuts as at present put forward will have a very damaging effect on our prowess, prestige and advance in the new world now developing in civil aviation research. I ask the Minister to see that this problem of these cuts goes before the Prime Minister.

10.20 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Supply (Mr. W. J. Taylor): I appreciate the anxiety of the hon. Lady the Member for Coventry, South (Miss Burton) in this matter as it affects her constituency in Coventry. If I may say so, she has covered a great deal of ground in the minimum of time, and I will try, in the limited time left to me, to reply to the many important points which she has raised.
I regret very much that one of the first firms to suffer from the inevitable effects


of the cuts in the defence programme has been a fine firm in the hon. Lady's constituency. I should like, however, to go right back to first principles on this matter. I think I am right in saying that it is common ground between hon. Members in all parts of the House that some streamlining of the defence research and development programme was essential if the country was to remain viable economically. The Report of the Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Estimates, which was so ably presided over by the hon. Lady herself, recommended
That the present military aircraft programme should be critically examined with a view to ensuring that the number of projects is the absolute minimum consistent with security.
I am quite sure that the hon. Lady would not wish to deny that important recommendation made by that Sub-Committee.
The need for streamlining the defence programme is underlined by the shortage of science and engineering graduates in this country. The recent Report on Scientific and Engineering Manpower in Great Britain, issued jointly by the Ministry of Labour and National Service and the Advisory Council on Scientific Policy, estimated that the number of people qualifying each year in science and engineering would need to increase from about 10,000 in 1954–55 to about 20,000 in 1970, an increase of 100 per cent. The defence programme absorbs a substantial proportion of our slender resources of technical manpower. As an indication of that, I will remind hon. Members that, in 1955–56, about two-thirds of the total estimated expenditure on research and development in this country was devoted to defence work.
It is, of course, true that much of the work done for defence purposes contributes also to advances in the civil field, but it is now, I think, generally recognised that if we are to maintain and improve the economic position of this country, we must have more technically qualified people for civil work.
The Defence White Paper makes several references to the employment of a substantial amount of our scarce technical manpower on defence work, and one of its effects will be to make available some of those skilled men for work in civil industries. That cannot, unfortu-

nately, be achieved without some temporary dislocation in the firms and localities immediately affected. That, I am afraid, is inevitable. But, if we are to attain our object, we must face the problem. It would be wrong to run away from it by, for example, attempting to provide alternative defence work whenever a contract was cancelled.
With regard to the particular project to which the hon. Lady has referred, the project for the supersonic bomber, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Air made clear, in the course of the debate on the Air Estimates, that there was no longer a requirement for that aircraft. In face of that withdrawal of the requirement, and bearing in mind the very heavy cost of the project—it was estimated that the total cost of development, including the development batch aircraft, development of the engine and other special equipment, would be about £70 million—I am sure that no one would suggest that the Government had any alternative but to cancel all the work on the project, except for such elements as might be common to another project for which there was a continuing requirement. In particular, there is no longer a requirement for the engine which was being developed by Armstrong Siddeley's, and we had reluctantly to cancel that, along with the aircraft.
I thank the hon. Lady for her courtesy in giving me notice of the two important questions which she raised in her speech. She asked about future prospects for research and development work at Armstrong Siddeley's. Whilst I do not want to minimise in any way the effect on the firm of the cancellation of that engine, I must make clear that the company is still doing substantial research and development work for my Department.
As my right hon. Friend said, in answer to a recent question by the hon. Lady, the firm's expenditure this year on research and development work for the Ministry of Supply will be about two-thirds of that of the previous year, and a good deal of it will, in all probability, continue into the succeeding years. The hon. Lady said that the company had not foreseen this latest development of the cancellation of this important project. Neither had the Ministry of Supply. We had not foreseen it either, and we regret it very much.
The hon. Lady's second question concerned the future of the aero-engine industry in Coventry. Concerning new work, there is at the moment no firm requirement for a new engine either on the civil or on the military side; but as requirements arise, Armstrong Siddeley's, in common with other firms in the aero-engine industry, will have the opportunity of submitting proposals to meet them. The total of new requirements available to the industry as a whole is, however, bound to be less than it has been and I am, therefore, glad to see that the company is actively seeking work in other directions. That is very wise.
Since the end of the war, the British aero-engine industry has been second to none in its success in attracting foreign custom, and it has established an outstanding reputation for the quality of its products. I am sure that the aero-engine industry in Coventry and elsewhere will maintain its vigorous search for export orders. The efforts of Armstrong Siddeley's and Alvis, in conjunction with the airframe manufacturers, have recently met with success in the form of German orders for aircraft and helicopters powered by their engines and there are promising sales prospects for several of the firms' products. My Department plays an active part in assisting those exports and in encouraging the interest of foreign Governments in the industry's products.
The hon. Lady has referred to the effects on technology generally as well as in Coventry in particular. The cancellation of the supersonic bomber will undoubtedly mean that a good deal of knowledge that would have been useful to aviation generally will be lost to us. I should not, however, like anyone to think that we have put a complete stop to work in the supersonic field. That is not so. We are continuing with work on a new and advanced supersonic research aircraft. In addition, in accordance with the decisions in the Defence White Paper, the guided missile programme will be pressed forward, and work on missiles will contribute to the solution of problems in the aircraft field.
It is now public knowledge that the Ministry of Supply, the Airways Corporations and a group of manufacturers are undertaking preliminary studies into the possibilities of developing a supersonic civil transport. Among the firms engaged are both of those—A. V. Roe and Armstrong-Siddeley—most heavily affected by the cancellation of the bomber. We are, at this stage, merely considering a research project to assess development possibilities. If, however, it is established that a supersonic transport is an economic proposition, I am sure everyone would agree that it would be much better to devote our resources to a project such as that rather than to a military project for which the operational requirement has been withdrawn.
The hon. Lady has expressed concern as to whether the arrangements for consultation between my Department and the Ministry of Labour are adequate. I can assure her that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour was kept continuously informed of the projects likely to be eliminated from the defence programme and the firms which would be affected. Clearly, no executive action could be taken until decisions had been made and cancellations agreed upon. Since then, however, there have been frequent discussions between the two Departments and, I believe, the local officers of the Ministry of Labour have done all in their power to assist in the redeployment of the workers who have had to be discharged. I have myself discussed these problems with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour.
I should like to have dealt with the points made by the hon. Lady about emigration, although they are not, of course, particularly the concern of my Department. As there is not time, I should like to say that if the hon. Lady will have a word with me, I will speak to her later about that.

The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.